Printable View
Probably. Personally, I don't think that that's a very good reason to keep a guy out of the Hall. As we've mentioned before, there are plenty of scoundrels and villeins in the Hall already. Belle's misbehavior, if he were admitted, should be a component of his biography, not a reason factored into whether or not to admit him.
I'm really on the fence about either one of them making it regardless, but if I had a vote, I probably would vote... yes.
Re: Belle vs. Rice.
I think it should be noted that Rice played before expansion in the 90s diluted the pitching around the league. I would expect Rice's numbers to be significantly better if he'd played most of his career in the 90s, even if he didn't play them at Fenway.
That's not to say Rice should be in - only to say Belle's numbers would need to be 10-15% better than Rice's for them to be "equal" in my eyes.
With a lot of the less savory characters, there was a lot more distance between their behavior and the years they were elected. Belle is still a really fresh memory to a lot of people. In another 10 years the memory may soften some, and the Vets may put him in.
1) what about the fact that Belle put up Rice's numbers in 30% less AB?Quote:
Originally Posted by TexanBob
2) Barry's numbers need to be 50% better than Ruth for them to be equal, ie. hit 1130+ HR?
Jim Rice OPS+ 128Quote:
Originally Posted by TexanBob
Albert Belle OPS+ 143
His numbers against the rest of the league, adjusted for ballpark effects, are about 12% better than Rice's.
And what disposablehero said!
Personally, I don't think either belongs in the Hall, I just find it a great injustice that Belle gets knocked off the ballot, while Rice inches closer to enshrinement.
You know, according to the way the guys at Baseball Prospectus figure things (specifically, Nate Silver) with EqA and their little statistical "time machine", Bond's performance is better than Ruth in terms of getting on base, Fielding, and Running, but not quite as good in terms of slugging.
OPS+... what a joke. All outs are bad outs... what a joke. Sure OPS+ can compare eras and adjust for years and parks...so what? The style of baseball was different in the late 1970s to the early 1990s. How does OPS+ adjust for fielding? How does it adjust for strategy? Bruce Sutter invented a pitch...do you have any idea what that means? How many WS has the Bill James school won? One by my count and if a team has the 2nd highest payroll year after year statistics tell us they are bound to win at some point right...?
Albert Belle was a jerk...plain and simple. That is why he is off the Hall of Fame radar already...go look at what the "real" Hall of Fame ballot says about character.
In return HOUSTON GM will spout about stats and OPS+ being the Holy Grail some more...I suggest you go out and play or coach some and watch more baseball rather than trying to win arguements by shouting "OPS+! OPS+!" over and over.
How's it a joke?Quote:
Originally Posted by edburns
The overwhelming majority of outs are bad because they decrease a team's run expectancy. There's a small combination of instances in which an out can help, but the amount of times where it does is very small.Quote:
All outs are bad outs... what a joke.
So it can compare hitters on an even level?Quote:
Sure OPS+ can compare eras and adjust for years and parks...so what?
Exactly why OPS+ exists...Quote:
The style of baseball was different in the late 1970s to the early 1990s.
It doesn't. It's an offensive statistic. :confused:Quote:
How does OPS+ adjust for fielding?
It doesn't. It's an offensive statistic designed to measure a player's on-base ability and power relative to his league. :confused:Quote:
How does it adjust for strategy?
It means he invented a pitch. What does that have to do with OPS+?Quote:
Bruce Sutter invented a pitch...do you have any idea what that means?
Read the thread. We've already gone over that. The playoffs are essentially random.Quote:
How many WS has the Bill James school won? One by my count and if a team has the 2nd highest payroll year after year statistics tell us they are bound to win at some point right...?
I wouldn't want Belle in the Hall, I'm just saying that it's a travesty that Jim Rice is on the fringes while Belle is completely left off, even though Belle was the superbly better player.Quote:
Albert Belle was a jerk...plain and simple. That is why he is off the Hall of Fame radar already...go look at what the "real" Hall of Fame ballot says about character.
LOL.Quote:
In return HOUSTON GM will spout about stats and OPS+ being the Holy Grail some more...I suggest you go out and play or coach some and watch more baseball rather than trying to win arguements by shouting "OPS+! OPS+!" over and over.
That's all I have to say to that. I watch baseball ALL the time. I hope to play in college. I'm 17, so I'm not exactly in a position to COACH.
And if I was to coach, I'd tell my players that the goal of baseball is to score runs. And you score runs by getting on base. And therefore, getting on base is good. :rolleyes:
How about this. Instead of just railing against statistics and claiming that they're "jokes" without providing any proof, show me some proof. Give me some extensive studies that show that outs are often good, instead of rarely good. There's been tons of studies that prove that outs are bad. Christ, you don't need a study to show you that an out is bad. You have 27 outs in a game of baseball, just use logic and you'll see that wasting outs is NOT GOOD. But seriously, the anti-statistical side never gives their own proof to counter the pro-statistic side. They just use baseless insults such as "You never watch baseball" or simply dismiss it as a "joke." That's the real joke here.
Doesn't matter. GM's and Managers don't talk about it much, but sabermetrics has already won the field. Every GM, Manager, and player in baseball uses the tools that sabermetrics has developed over the years in some fashion these days. Arbitration and contract negotiations, trade decisions, deciding to sign players or not, etc... Almost all decisions in baseball are made with some statistical reference in mind now. I saw an article the other day talking about how the "traditional" scouts are almost exclusively using some sabermetric evaluations in their reports now (Don't have the link handy, unfortunately). The debate is more about what statistics to use and how to properly use them nowadays, rather than weather or not to use them.
*shrug*
Unfortunately, the BBWA is a last bastion of traditionalist thought, in that a good portion of their members seem to be intentionally avoiding sabermetric evaluations. That will change over time, though. The only question is, who's going to be passed over in the process? Even that problem isn't permanent though, since there's always the veterans association...
To add more to my side of the argument, below is a chart of the 2006 teams. In it, you'll see the team's place in the MLB in runs, OPS, and on-base percentage.Look how nicely OPS correlates with runs scored. If you wanted to guess the order of teams by their runs scored, and all you did was order them by their OPS+, you wouldn't be far off. The only large anomoly I see is Toronto, who placed 12th in runs scored but managed the 2nd best OPS. Exactly half the league, 15 teams, either were in the same place in Runs and OPS, or were one off. It's eerie how closely the two rankings correlate.Code:Team Runs OPS OBP
New York (AL) 1 1 1
Cleveland 2 4 3
Chicago (AL) 3 3 8
Philadelphia 4 5 6
Atlanta 5 6 15
Texas 6 8 12
New York (NL) 7 10 17
Detroit 8 11 24
Boston 9 7 2
Los Angeles (NL) 10 9 4
Colorado 11 12 9
Toronto 12 2 5
Minnesota 13 13 7
St. Louis 14 14 14
Arizona 15 20 22
Oakland 16 21 10
Baltimore 17 17 11
Los Angeles (AL) 18 18 18
Florida 19 16 23
Kansas City 20 26 19
Seattle 21 22 27
Cincinnati 22 15 16
Washington 23 19 13
San Francisco 24 25 28
Houston 25 28 21
San Diego 26 23 20
Milwaukee 27 24 25
Chicago (NL) 28 27 29
Pittsburgh 29 30 26
Tampa Bay 30 29 30
Not really, considering you can't score if you can't get on base.Quote:
It's eerie how closely the two rankings correlate.
lol
That was sarcasm. :p Some of the hardcore traditionalists would like to believe that OPS and on-base percentage mean absolutely nothing. I bet even when confronted with the strong correlation between OPS and runs scored, they'd still dismiss OPS as a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
:cool:
Yeah........ what she said.:cool: Baseball Prospectus.
Sticking a plus on a bad stat doesn't make it good.
Ohms, traditionalist thought is not a bad thing in baseball. We don't need another overproduced pageant crammed full of cheerleaders, dunkin' midgets, and has been musicians in American sports. Thank G O D that there's a veterans committee to keep some balance. Not many people are getting in on their glove, but the Vets can help there.Quote:
Unfortunately, the BBWA is a last bastion of traditionalist thought, in that a good portion of their members seem to be intentionally avoiding sabermetric evaluations. That will change over time, though. The only question is, who's going to be passed over in the process? Even that problem isn't permanent though, since there's always the veterans association...
OPS is not a great stat, because it puts equal value on slugging and on-base, correct. On-base is much more important. Stuff like Gross Production Average (roughly (OBP*1.8+SLG)/4 i believe off the top if my head, then adjusted for park) have been created to solve that problem. OPS+ is better than OPS, though.
There's nothing wrong with traditions in my book, as long as they don't prevent the furthering of thought. The "science" of baseball, looking at and interpreting stats critically, and questioning the decisions that baseball personnel make, has helped baseball come a long way since the 70's & 80's. There is more offense, less injuries, pitchers are used more wisely and many of their careers have been extended. Most of those results (not exclusively, but the driving force) are the direct result of findings by prominent sabermetricians. Just about every team in MLB these days has a sabermetric minded employee, and/or hires specialty consultants for certain purposes. The league itself has hired several companies, especially recently, for the express purpose of increasing stats collection and dissemination.Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
All I'm saying is that the BBWA, nor anyone else, should choose to ignore sabermetric stats simply because their new.
Nolan Ryan would argue the point of "wisely used" pitchers with you. Prior and Wood are prime examples of guys who were most likely shoved to the majors early. They had enough to play today for sure, but they probably hadn't developed physically (or mentally) to the point that they should have. I think that the major increases in pitcher longevity have arisen due to the quantum leap in surgical procedures. It's definitely not the norm for a team to keep a power pitcher in the minors for his own good when they can make a push for the playoffs this year, or for gate receipts.
Houston, OPS is the base stat in OPS+. If the stat is flawed, then how can the addition of more numbers give you a reliable product? It's like filling an ice cream cone with poop, and covering it with sprinkles. It looks like a cone, but it's nothing more than @#%* really.
Exactly my point. Since Ryan's time, pitch counts and tracking performances relative to them have become a big deal. That, in addition to some mechanics insights and improvements in conditioning and medical procedures, has had a revolutionary impact on pitching at... well, all levels of baseball.
The September pitching stints for kids aren't that harmful either, from what I've read. the real damage is done through chronic overuse, not from 2-3 extreme starts. Although, I've seen even that being debated recently as well. That's all part of the non-traditional thinking that's been developing since the 70's, though. None of this would be occurring now unless someone somewhere decided to ignore the conventional wisdom, and start listening to someone with the data to back up their points.
OPS+ is better than OPS because it's a more advanced stat. Yes, it's flawed. Every single stat has its flaws and no one stat should ever be used completely alone when evaluating players. Adjusting for ballpark and league make OPS+ more reliable than OPS when using OPS to compare players.Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
I lean more towards the views expressed by ohms_law and HoustonGM about of the importance of stats, but in the case of more pitchers being able to have longer careers, I agree with robinhoodnik that advances in sports medicine (not all of which involve surgical procedure) is more of a factor than is sabermetric thought. Indeed, much more.Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
Their not really separable issues though, from what I know. I mean, medical technology would have advanced as it has regardless, but it's the application of the technology that is important to baseball. If MLB front offices had remained as traditionally unwilling to give beat up pitcher's a chance at rehab, nothing would have changed. If statisticians remained unheard regarding pitch counts and starts, owners and GM's would have no reason not to stick with 4-man rotations. I guarantee that if an owner felt that he could get away without that extra starter with a multi-million dollar contract, he would.
Point being, the medical techniques became available. Their application in baseball has been due to statistical analysis, and not merely for pitching either. Strength and conditioning workout regimes for all players are the norm now, where they were the exception 30-40 years ago. Full time medical and training teams are relatively new, as well.
It's not all stats dps, just that I think that OPS and by extension, OPS+ are really not much use in judging a players true value. There are a lot of more useful stats out there than these two in my opinion.
The medical in sports is more financial. If you spend 3 years on a guy, he's really in the hole financially. You paid him, you paid his upkeep, training, physical conditioning, medical expenses, travel, etc. he goes down, it's a loss, if he can be fixed he's still got upside. Same with regulars and stars. The marketing can make back your money from the insurance layout. Teams actually sell the rights to be the "official" team hospital. There're kickbacks all around for any positive mention. The local analysts aren't mentioning the doctors and specialists names because they think they're great guys, it's part of the whole marketing package.
I think that pitch counts are just the latest wave. Baseball's allways changing when a new way of thinking comes along. Now they're looking at the six man rotation. twenty years ago closers were still something of an oddity and just beginning to come into their own. There were closers before then but in the mid eighties it really took off. Same with pitch management, now it's 115-120 for most starters if they're going ok, less if they're not. It'll change again.
Yes, it is. And how do you think that owners and GM's were convinced that there is a financial upside in not overusing their multi-million dollar ace pitchers?Quote:
The medical in sports is more financial.
:eek:
Of course it will, but it's how it'll change that is the key. 6-man rotations, as you mentioned, are a good bet sometime down the road. GM's and Managers, let alone pitchers themselves, are never going back to 3 and 4 man rotations regularly again. The 5 man rotations are the standard now because there is evidence that their effective. It's not just a fad to the people in MLB front offices.Quote:
It'll change again.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. Many of the sabermetric stats are great when trying to get a handle on who is likely to have a big season, who is on the decline, etc... A wonderful tool for trying to predict POTENTIAL.
But when actually evaluating what a player HAS done, W-L, RBI and Runs scored are king. The whole point of the game is to Win, and to win you need to score more runs than the other guy. In the end *it doesn't matter how you did it... just that you did it!*. Otherwise you might as well induct guy's in A ball based on potential. Are there adjustments to be made based on era played? Yes! If the average game had 20% less runs scored 20 years ago, then that has an impact, but doing averages of averages to decide who goes in to the HOF or not is pointless.
Performance vs Potential
The HOF has nothing to do with potential, you are rewarding players on what they have done, and the noteriety that came with it. Hence the name: "Hall of Fame". That's why HR's, K's, and Hit's are so important as benchmarks? Because being a 3000K pitcher automatically makes you great? No! Because it makes you "famous". That's why no one ever mentions something like 500 Doubles or 150 Triples as auto HOF stats.
Having the balance sheets in front of them? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
They're still overusing them, they're just better at fixing what they break now.
Of course, but they are worth something when used in conjuction with other stats.Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
While those stats (W-L, RBI, R) are used to judge what a player has done, that doesn't mean that they're right. Those stats DO NOT represent a player's ABILITIES. When evaluating players in a trade or before signing a player, you need to evaluate what the player's ABILITIES are. If your team is full of guys who don't get on base, you can't look at a player who drove in 100 runs and say "He'll do the same for our team" because that isn't necessarily true. But, if that player got on-base at a 40% clip, you can say with reasonable certainity that he will do the same for you.Quote:
But when actually evaluating what a player HAS done, W-L, RBI and Runs scored are king. The whole point of the game is to Win, and to win you need to score more runs than the other guy. In the end *it doesn't matter how you did it... just that you did it!*. Otherwise you might as well induct guy's in A ball based on potential. Are there adjustments to be made based on era played? Yes! If the average game had 20% less runs scored 20 years ago, then that has an impact, but doing averages of averages to decide who goes in to the HOF or not is pointless.
If we're going to induct players based on how "famous" they are, then Jose Canseco should be an automatic. Curt Flood too. Tons of players are FAMOUS. The Hall of Fame is for the greatest players in baseball. Milestone stats are great because in order to reach stats like 3,000 hits, you have to have had a long career. But, they only tell part of the picture, and just because a guy doesn't reach 3,000 hits or 3,000 K's or 500 home runs doesn't mean that he should be automatically excluded. With more stats at our disposal, we should use all the tools we can to evaluate players.Quote:
The HOF has nothing to do with potential, you are rewarding players on what they have done, and the noteriety that came with it. Hence the name: "Hall of Fame". That's why HR's, K's, and Hit's are so important as benchmarks? Because being a 3000K pitcher automatically makes you great? No! Because it makes you "famous". That's why no one ever mentions something like 500 Doubles or 150 Triples as auto HOF stats.
WARP, VORP, LWTS, XR, OPS, etc. are not about predicting the future. they are about quantifying an individual's prior contribution to the team's prior W-L record.Quote:
Originally Posted by dolfanar
MLE, ZiPS, PECOTA, MARCEL, CHONE, etc. are about predicting the future. they are about using an individual's prior contribution to predict his future contribution to the team's W-L record.
Absolutely 100% true, disposable.
The joke of it that baseball is much deeper than statistics. The reason the Billy Beane model worked and still works is finding value. I have been reading Bill James since about 1983. I understand that stats side of things, however, to blindly keep saying OPS+ OPS+ is the joke. Yes it is useful, but it does not account for strategy at all. Take a look at someone like Vince Coleman...or the entire 1985 Cardinals team. Not too impressive on paper, yet they won the NL Pennant. They had 300+ steals and were built for a style of baseball that matched the era and their ball park. The point is that OPS+ or any statistic captures some data, but not all. How does OPS+ or any stat for that matter capture the pressure a pitcher feels with Vince Coleman on 1B getting ready to steal? What does that pressure do to the pitch selection? The point of baseball is to score more runs than your opponent, not to just score runs. Ask the Rockies about scoring runs...It is a team sport and it operates on a much deeper level than any one stat can capture. Go back and read what you have written. OPS+ over and over and yet you miss the entire point. The best way to judge a Hall of Famer is this... was he the one or two best players at his position over a 10+ year period. Ask anyone who actually saw Dawson play in the 1980s and they will tell you that he was.
Now look again at 1985...how did KCR win the WS? OPS+ for the team of 95 and STL had a team OPS+ of 108. How does that happen? Oh the playoffs are random? No, not at all it is just that statistics can not measure everything. Ask Theo Epstein how to measure team chemistry...they won a WS which they should do with or without Theo Epstein. He had the 2nd highest payroll in baseball year after year and get annointed as the great savior of statistics. A broken clock is right twice a day...
The playoffs are, in great part, a **** shoot. I really believe that in a short series, the best team doesn't win all the time. Maybe not even 70 percent of the time. Luck plays a part.
However, I certainly understand your point about OPS+. I think quite a few people take a certain statistic (like OBP or whatever) and laud it as the be-all, end-all of judging a baseball player. They then miss the point of Moneyball & the Billy Beane school of thought--it's not that OBP or any other statistic is the ultimate--it's the theory of finding hidden value that other people aren't looking for, and some statistics can allow you to do that. That being said, I'm not even going to begin getting involved in the OPS+ devate.
Okay? So that means stats are useless?Quote:
Originally Posted by edburns
I'm not blindly saying it. It's just one quick way to compare players.Quote:
The reason the Billy Beane model worked and still works is finding value. I have been reading Bill James since about 1983. I understand that stats side of things, however, to blindly keep saying OPS+ OPS+ is the joke.
Strategy is a lot less important than skill.Quote:
Yes it is useful, but it does not account for strategy at all.
They also Jack Clark and Willie McGee posting OPS+'s around 150. Three or four good OBP guys. No power hitter, but nobody ever said a power hitter is needed. When you steal 110 bases at an 80% clip like Coleman did that year, yes there's a lot of value in that. Those steals are part of the reason Coleman had an above-average .269 EQA that year, despite a subpar 85 OPS+. EQA is a stat that takes into account many different stats, including stolen bases. .269 isn't amazing, but it's decent.Quote:
Take a look at someone like Vince Coleman...or the entire 1985 Cardinals team. Not too impressive on paper, yet they won the NL Pennant. They had 300+ steals and were built for a style of baseball that matched the era and their ball park.
Also, I'd also argue that the Cardinals were so good, not because of their hitting, but because of their pitching. Joaquin Andujar, John Tudor, and Danny Cox all had very good years, specifically Tudor. Combine that with a strong bullpen, and you don't need a very powerful lineup.
I know.Quote:
The point is that OPS+ or any statistic captures some data, but not all.
It doesn't. Stop acting like I said OPS+ is the be all and end all of a stat. The only thing OPS+ measures is on-base and slugging...No stat can capture every single thing on the baseball field, but if you look at the multitude of stats that are available, you can get a very good judge of a player's value and ability. You're placing way too much emphasis on minor things that in the large scope of things are way less important than actual ability.Quote:
How does OPS+ or any stat for that matter capture the pressure a pitcher feels with Vince Coleman on 1B getting ready to steal? What does that pressure do to the pitch selection?
I think you missed me entire point. I was quickly and roughly using OPS+ to judge offensive dominance. It is in no way the be all and end all of statistics, but it's a quick way to judge a player's offensive dominance over the rest of his league.Quote:
Go back and read what you have written. OPS+ over and over and yet you miss the entire point.
Obviously they can't measure everything. And yes, the playoffs ARE basically random. Once you're in the playoffs, it's a toss up. Also, the Royals had an even stronger pitching staff than the Cards that year.Quote:
Now look again at 1985...how did KCR win the WS? OPS+ for the team of 95 and STL had a team OPS+ of 108. How does that happen? Oh the playoffs are random? No, not at all it is just that statistics can not measure everything
All in all, you're placing way way way too much value on things like team chemistry and the minor strategies that take place every once in a while. Over a 162 game season, talent and ability are far more important.
Jack Clark was an intimidating dude. He could hit shots that were still climbing while they were going over the wall. That's what made The Ripper a power hitter. The 22 homers he hit weren't bad in the mid eighties either. 30-35 were a great season
Yeah I know. He was a terrific player.Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
Old Hoss RadbournQuote:
Originally Posted by edburns
Sandy Koufax
Rube Waddell
Jack Chesbro
Juan Marichal
Mordecai Brown
John Clarkson
Bruce Sutter
Lefty Gomez
Addie Joss
Tim Keefe
Bob Lemon
Joe McGinnity
Amos Rusie
Bobby Wallace
Mickey Welch
Vic Willis
none of these guys were the one or two best at their position over a 10+ year period ;)
are we really back to the "you have to see him play to be a good judge!" thing? if so....Quote:
Originally Posted by edburns
i saw him in person many times in the '80s (not everyone around here is a youngster ;) ). he wasnt one of the 1 or 2 best over a 10+ year period. not even close.
The whole thing about thinking that Houston is putting too much into OPS+ is incorrect as well. I brought up the discussion about the merits, and the problems, with OPS+. The reason that it's mentioned so often in this thread is because of that, and because it was used to answer a specific question. I don't see that HGM thinks it's the "answer to all questions" or anything like that.
It's NOT the answer to all questions. :)
It's one quick and dirty way to compare two players from any time in history using the two largest facets of offense - getting on base, and hitting for power. There are better ways, but it's the most easily accessable and also very easy to understand. 100 is average, how ever much above or below 100 is how much above or below average that player was.
He was always on TWIB, Sports Machine, Wide World Of Sports' highlight reels, He was well known even in cities without N.L. franchises or games available on the local channels. He was a great player and he was also always banged up, especially his knees. When he got to Boston near the end of his career, you could almost feel the pain you knew he was in when he played the field.Quote:
Originally Posted by disposablehero
Dawson wasn't even the best player on his own teams. When he was with Montreal, the best player on the team was Gary Carter; with Chicago, the best player on the team was Ryne Sandberg. That doesn't mean that Dawson shouldn't be in the Hall, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by disposablehero
I am not trying to speak for edburns, but I think he is referring to position players when he says, "The best way to judge a Hall of Famer is this... was he the one or two best players at his position over a 10+ year period."
This , if interpreted literally, would reduce the HOF down to 20 players at best, I would think. Quite a strict standard. Nobody entirely agrees with anyone else on the HOF. Some want a stricter standard, and less players. Some want a special group of the best of the best, an "Inner Circle", or something like that. Others just want to induct every "good" player in history. The fact remains, no one is right, and no one is wrong.
Perhaps edburns meant that a player should have been in the top 1-2 players at some point, during a 10 year period of good play. That would make sense, if you want a more liberal standard. However, I dont think thats especially fair. What if, in a particular era, there were no truly great third basemen? We induct the 1-2 guys who were the best? Maybe 20 years later, there are 5-6 third basemen who were outstanding. We pick the best 2 and leave the others out?
I dont think that "picking the best of his era" things works that well. In 1950, there were only 7 active pitchers who eventually made the HOF, but in 1970, there were 14. Assuming that all 21 were qualified ( a stretch, I know), shouldnt we have inducted more from the 1950 era and/or less from the 1970 era?
Just a thought.