-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kenny1234
My prediction, Smoltz will probably get in, and I think Mussina and Schilling have a decent shot. And Kevin Brown won't get in.
I think Smoltz, Mussina, and Schilling will all definitely get in. If Smoltz, Glavine, and Maddux all retire this year, there's no doubt in my mind that all 3 will go in on their first ballot, as that's too good of a story for the writers to pass up. I think Mussina and Schilling will have to wait a few years but will both eventually get in. I agree that Brown has no shot.
Quote:
But that has nothing to do with whether they should - in my opinion.
Agreed, but that's not why I think all four should.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kenny1234
Fine, I don't put much value in the 'established standard'. I don't think voters should feel any pressure on the basis of past decisions.
If you are talking about predicting who will get in, then fine, use the voting record. But then it doesn't make much sense to worry about what a somewhat different set of voters did 20 years ago. My prediction, Smoltz will probably get in, and I think Mussina and Schilling have a decent shot. And Kevin Brown won't get in. But that has nothing to do with whether they should - in my opinion.
If you don't put any value on an established standard, that leaves the voters with just as much room to loosen the standards as to tighten them. So instead of deciding that Smoltz won't get in, the voters might instead decide that not only do Smoltz and the other pitchers we've discussed should get in, but so does, say, Trinidad Hubbard.
Plus, I don't see how you can even start to evaluate whether or not a player belongs without comparing his record to that of current inductees. If you have a center fielder who had a 12-year career in which he hit .297 with 324 homers and stole 462 bases, how do you judge his worthiness without looking at that in context of the records of the current inductees?
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dps
If you don't put any value on an established standard, that leaves the voters with just as much room to loosen the standards as to tighten them. So instead of deciding that Smoltz won't get in, the voters might instead decide that not only do Smoltz and the other pitchers we've discussed should get in, but so does, say, Trinidad Hubbard.
Plus, I don't see how you can even start to evaluate whether or not a player belongs without comparing his record to that of current inductees. If you have a center fielder who had a 12-year career in which he hit .297 with 324 homers and stole 462 bases, how do you judge his worthiness without looking at that in context of the records of the current inductees?
I think you evaluate players in terms of their peers. Was this player one of the best to play the game when they were playing? As someone said before, are they an integral part of the story of baseball? And yes, if you happen to play at a time when 4 of the best to ever play the game were active, then you lose a little by comparison. The last few years, 1 or 2 players have been inducted each year. That seems about right to me. And if the bar is set that high going forward - none of the 4 pitchers under discussion makes the HOF.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
I finally have some time to respond to this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
I think that's a special case considering he wasn't allowed to play in the majors during what really would've been his peak years. I'd give credit for that, and put him in the Hall based solely on his MLB work, regardless of whether or not he was the one to break the color barrier. He was a Hall of Fame talent.
There's no doubt Jackie Robinson was a HOF talent and a HOFer for reasons well beyond what he did on the field (he could have been average and made the Hall). But if there had been one or two black players in there before him, and if they league had a few better 2Bs at the time, his HOF case wouldn't be anywhere near as strong as it is. I was just trying to make the point that players can do what they do but be greatly affected by the other players in the game of baseball when it comes to what historic status they have.
And this is the point I'm trying to make about could-have-beens like Van Poppel and Gooden. Gooden was unquestionably of HOF talent, but he ruined his own career. Just like I believe players can be "penalized" if they were overwhelmed by the talent surrounding them (John Smoltz is overwhelmed by a wealth of pitching talent during his career), players can also benefit from a lack of overwhelming talent. It's not the strongest or best argument because it's taking theoretical and hypothetical situations into account.
If Clemens/Maddux/Pedro/Johnson didn't have so many Cy Youngs, these guys you're arguing for would each have more, and it'd be much harder to argue against them. That's basically it.
Quote:
But at any rate, I think narrowing it down to specific player cases loses track of the overall point. The top pitchers nowadays throw 230 or so innings. That's just the way it is. The top pitchers in the 1970s threw upwards of 300 innings, yes. I don't think that because a pitcher today throws less innings than a pitcher of the 1970s means that today's pitchers have to be above and beyond those pitchers in terms of pure non-playing time performance. Pitchers have to be judged within the context of their times.
If in some hypothetical future, pitchers are used in an entirely different fashion and medical improvements allow for more wear and tear on the arm and the top pitchers throw 400 innings of work, a mediocre 400-inning pitcher of that day shouldn't have a better HOF case than a very good 230-inning pitcher of today's times.
I agree with some of this and disagree with some of this. The thing about pitching is, it's changed so much in the way the personnel is used when compared to the way use of position players has changed. 100+ years ago, you might end up starting 1/3 of your team's games during a season. 50 years ago, you were starting 1/4 of your team's games. Today, you're starting 1/5 of them. The reasoning behind this can be explored further, and gets into tangents about pitchers throwing harder now (like the Walter Johnson in 2008 debate from a few months back).
But it remains the same that a pitcher back then had a much larger part of his team's success or failure than a pitcher does today. And for whatever reason, pitchers in the 70s (even the ones that threw hard) were far more durable. As much as I hate to say this (and honestly, I'm still in the process of forming a rock-solid opinion about this myself), I tend to WANT to respect 2008's average SP less than I respect 1973's average SP. In a similar way of arguing for more SPs and less RPs in an All Star Game, for example.
While Mike Mussina is an absolute standout pitcher, and definitely a top 10 pitcher of his time, in my mind his HOF case becomes shaky because I'm thinking about him being in there with guys who put up similarly "worthy" career numbers but were a bigger part of their team each and every season. Guys like Hunter and Marichal, who are already somewhat questionable for the HOF in my mind.
I do favor a smaller HOF, and again, that's the key thing to this disagreement. I could probably go through the entire HOF and want to make a case for at least 1/3 of the players being taken out. I think the HOF should be saved for players who hold the distinction of legendary superlatives. Like Babe Ruth, the greatest player ever. Lou Gehrig, the greatest ever hitter not named Babe Ruth. Sandy Koufax, the most dominant pitcher baseball had ever seen over a short stretch of seasons in its entire history. Jackie Robinson, the first black player and possibly the most exciting player MLB had ever seen at the time. Hank Aaron, the most durable and consistently good player ever. Roger Clemens, possibly the greatest pitcher of all time. Cy Young, the pitcher with the most wins, losses and decisions ever. And so on. Of course there is room for players who lack superlatives but had remarkable careers. But what could be said for Mike Mussina? "He was never the best pitcher, and only came close a couple of times, but he was really good for a long time."
Since pitching is more of a TEAM effort now, I do think it makes the burden of proving worthiness more difficult. Is it fair? No. But for me, the Hall isn't a matter of fairness.
Quote:
The player should be compared to the other player's of his position in his era, and then the way he compares to his era should be compared to the way past players compared to their era. Generally speaking, if a pitcher today is 20% better than the pitchers of his time, and the average pitcher in the Hall of Fame is 20% better than the pitchers of their time, that player meets the standard of the average Hall of Famer, and I think that merits induction. I hope that made sense.
It makes total sense. And I do agree. But even when I consider all the best arguments for Mussina, I still look at the bottom line and say "I can't tell if this guy should be in the HOF, therefore he doesn't belong in the HOF in my mind." If I have any doubt about a player being a HOFer, I tend to lean towards "no." I want all HOFers to be totally clearcut choices.
Quote:
I don't see how I'm doing that. Maddux/Pedro/Clemens/Johnson are clearly the top 4 of their era, and clearly above and beyond most pitchers in all of history. The Hall of Fame hasn't only honored the top 4/5 pitchers of his era. Generally, the Hall has honored those guys, plus a handful of other pitchers that weren't quite at the top of their era all the time, but were still outstanding pitchers. I don't think a different standard should be applied to this era, just because the top pitchers of this era were better than the usual top pitchers.
That's not quite what I'm saying, though it may sound like that. It's more a matter of, the guys at the very top of the 90s-ish era were very clearcut choices, and those below them are not. Glavine is where things get interesting. While I don't think Glavine has a career superlative (other than being the most consistently great LHP of his time), I feel Glavine easily meets the total-career-value standard, but I don't feel that Mussina does. I don't have an exact "line" drawn between them (and it's not the 300 wins), but it's how it looks to me.
That, and, the big 4 from the 90s were so good that they left little room for the Mussinas and Browns of the world to look like HOFers because they were always lagging. If all the players that we're discussing make it to the Hall, I'd be willing to bet that in 50 years, the average fan will know all about Clemens and Maddux and Pedro, but won't have much of a clue about Mussina. The big 4 pitchers of the 90s OWNED the 90s so thoroughly, in an age where pitching tended towards less starts and less innings per start.
Quote:
Billy Wagner's thrown 818 innings, 180 ERA+. Dan Quissenberry threw 1,003.1 innings, 146 ERA+. John Franco threw 1,245.2 innings, 137 ERA+. Jeff Montgomery threw 868.2 innings, 134 ERA+. The only thing that separates Hoffman from that group of guys is the saves, and I, personally, don't base any evaluation of players on the save.
I don't base evaluation on saves either, but I think that career record plus the outstanding consistency and durability (in a role which sees players crash and burn so often) are HOF-worthy. In an era where closers are "so important" and teams pay through the nose for them and groom players specifically for that one-inning role, the save is important to this era of the game, whether or not it's the correct way to operate a baseball team.
Quote:
I don't agree. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. WARP, as a counting stat, takes playing time into account. However, WARP compares players to their contemporaries....so (and this is just an extreme generalization) if the average starting pitcher in 1970 threw 300 innings at 100 ERA+, and the average starting pitcher in 2000 threw 200 innings at 100 ERA+, those players would have the same WARP assuming all other aspects of their performance were identical (at least as far as I understand WARP, I could be wrong).
I don't understand WARP that well. I mean, I definitely understand its function, but I'm unclear about its derivation. So I can't make much of a judgment based on it.
Quote:
Because I'm not ashamed. lol
Haha... well, actually, I was meaning that I was trying to, but there isn't a smilie for it. The embarrassment smilie isn't blushy enough. Just a corny little joke.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
Mussina looks good here. I wonder why Pedro is so low.
Quote:
Note, for this ranking i used both VORP and my own slight adjustment in multiple cases (which is why in one case, 2000, 6 of the guys I have listed as top 5, as I felt there was no meaningful difference between two of them, although I forget which off the top of my head). Mussina looks a tiny bit worse as compared to my prior assessment, but according to VORP, he should've won two Cy Youngs - 1992 and 1994. Schilling looks a lot worse this time. Brown looks the same. Smoltz looks slightly worse.
At any rate, this "study" made me appreciate Gibson, Seaver and Palmer more than I had. Below is a table of the players and their Top 5 and Top 10 finishes. Top 10 includes the top 5 finishes as well (sorted by top 10):
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...0Stuff/top.jpg
Yeah, Tom Seaver was something else. He's always been one of my historical favorites. This chart is not favorable at all to Schilling or Smoltz, which only reaffirms my feelings about them. Brown and Mussina look very solid, but only 6 years in the top 10? That doesn't make me think HOFer. By this, don't you think Dale Murphy should be in the HOF? He was the best player in all of baseball for 2 straight seasons, and a top 10/15 guy for at least 5 or 6 seasons.
And just as I thought would happen, you see the lesser of the 70s pitchers at the very bottom. But Niekro and Sutton get the total career value argument in their favor, where for me, Schilling and Smoltz do not have that. Catfish Hunter, I don't think should be a HOFer anyway.
Quote:
This sort of study isn't very favorable to Glavine, who I think is a lot like Mussina, just with more career value.
Exactly, and the career value puts him over the top for me. As I said earlier, I'd want to draw the line somewhere between them, probably right next to Mussina.
Quote:
At any rate, it still appears to me that the Mussina/Smoltz/Schilling/Brown group fit squarely in with the Hall of Famers from the 1960s/1970s era. The 90s guys fit perfectly in with the non-elite (Gibson, Palmer, Seaver) 70s guys both in terms of times in the top 5 and in times in the top 10. For me, this strengthens my belief in all 4 as Hall of Famers. They're certainly not out of place at all among the current Hall of Famers.
I think it depends how you look at it. Again, the guys at the top are unquestionable. The 70s guys that are mixed in at the bottom, most of them are HOF-worthy (both to me and to the Hall) based on their career totals, and the amount of games they pitched and completed and the amount of innings they threw.
Anyway, this was cool to see. I appreciate the effort. You've actually sold me quite a bit on Mussina. Though I'd leave him off my ballot, I wouldn't be outraged, or even unhappy about him being in the Hall. He does fit (but as I said, much earlier in this post, I already think many of the current HOFers shouldn't be there).
As far as Brown, I have to say absolutely not. And I'd want to bring up the Hershiser argument again. Though Brown had a better career, Hershiser comes with some interesting perks (legendary playoff performance in '88, and carrying his team into those playoffs with one of the most remarkable runs any player has ever seen) that would put him at Brown's level for me. And I don't think either are HOFers. If Brown fits, then he fits in at the level of Catfish Hunter, and at that point he sets a precedent and helps make a case for pitchers like David Cone and Orel Hershiser.
Smoltz wasn't an elite pitcher for long enough. 5 years in the top 10 according to you, with none in the top 5, and a "fluke" Cy Young award. I'd have to go no with him. And I don't think he fits the Hall.
For Schilling, the argument would have to lie with his playoff performances for the Red Sox and Diamondbacks. Like Brown, I think he'd come in around the Catfish Hunter level and again, be expanding the HOF picture to possibly include a David Cone type of pitcher.
Good discussion. You've made a lot of great points, and proved that these players have great HOF arguments.
I just like a smaller Hall. :)
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
justanewguy
But it remains the same that a pitcher back then had a much larger part of his team's success or failure than a pitcher does today. And for whatever reason, pitchers in the 70s (even the ones that threw hard) were far more durable.
This is a separate issues, but a couple things on that. I don't think the 1970's pitchers were actually more durable overall. The 1960s/1970s were a period of much lower offense as compared to today, so it was easier to get through the lineup multiple times. Furthermore, there's a ton of cases of pitchers in the 1970s having a couple big 300 inning seasons and then falling off the map. Now, yes, there's pitchers like that now, but people (not saying you. just in general) tend to laud the 1970's guys for being freaks capable of huge workloads, but they overlook how a lot of the 1970's guys fell apart quickly.
Quote:
I do favor a smaller HOF, and again, that's the key thing to this disagreement. I could probably go through the entire HOF and want to make a case for at least 1/3 of the players being taken out. I think the HOF should be saved for players who hold the distinction of legendary superlatives. Like Babe Ruth, the greatest player ever. Lou Gehrig, the greatest ever hitter not named Babe Ruth. Sandy Koufax, the most dominant pitcher baseball had ever seen over a short stretch of seasons in its entire history. Jackie Robinson, the first black player and possibly the most exciting player MLB had ever seen at the time. Hank Aaron, the most consistent and durable player ever. Roger Clemens, possibly the greatest pitcher of all time. Cy Young, the pitcher with the most wins, losses and decisions ever. And so on. Of course there is room for players who lack superlatives but had remarkable careers. But what could be said for Mike Mussina? "He was never the best pitcher, and only came close a couple of times, but he was really good for a long time."
So it seems like you think that the HOF should be reserved for only the "inner circle" types. I disagree, obviously, and I'm also unsure how we could go about changing that if I was to agree. I don't think it's right to change the standards now. *shrug*
Quote:
If all the players that we're discussing make it to the Hall, I'd be willing to bet that in 50 years, the average fan will know all about Clemens and Maddux and Pedro, but won't have much of a clue about Mussina. The big 4 pitchers of the 90s OWNED the 90s so thoroughly, in an age where pitching tended towards less starts and less innings per start.
I think this is the case for all the past eras. Who does the average fan know from the 1960s/1970s era? Tom Seaver, Sandy Koufax, Bob Gibson....I'd bet a lot of them have only heard of guys like Don Sutton, Fergie Jenkins, Gaylord Perry, etc. in passing (unless of course they were alive and following baseball at that time).
Quote:
Mussina looks good here. I wonder why Pedro is so low.
Because it's career WARP. Outside of Pedro's peak seasons, he doesn't have that much.
Mussina has 11 seasons with 200+ innings and another 6 with 150-199. Pedro has 7 200 inning seasons, and only another 3 over 150. Mussina's thrown nearly 1,000 more innings than Pedro.
Quote:
Brown and Mussina look very solid, but only 6 years in the top 10? That doesn't make me think HOFer.
Maybe not, but when you compare it to the players already in the Hall, it does place them squarely in the middle.
Quote:
By this, don't you think Dale Murphy should be in the HOF? He was the best player in all of baseball for 2 straight seasons, and a top 10 guy for at least 5 or 6 seasons.
Murphy has little value outside of his 5 or 6 best seasons (and unlike a Pedro or Koufax case, his 5 or 6 best seasons weren't historically amazing).
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
This is a separate issues, but a couple things on that. I don't think the 1970's pitchers were actually more durable overall. The 1960s/1970s were a period of much lower offense as compared to today, so it was easier to get through the lineup multiple times. Furthermore, there's a ton of cases of pitchers in the 1970s having a couple big 300 inning seasons and then falling off the map. Now, yes, there's pitchers like that now, but people (not saying you. just in general) tend to laud the 1970's guys for being freaks capable of huge workloads, but they overlook how a lot of the 1970's guys fell apart quickly.
Yeah, guys in the 70s did fall apart, but so did guys in the 90s. The ones between both decades who didn't fall apart had far bigger workloads in the 70s. I do personally laud the 70s guys for the workloads, but I don't overlook the failures of the 70s. I think it makes the Don Suttons and Phil Niekros even more incredible.
Quote:
So it seems like you think that the HOF should be reserved for only the "inner circle" types. I disagree, obviously, and I'm also unsure how we could go about changing that if I was to agree. I don't think it's right to change the standards now. *shrug*
Well, yeah, but we have no effect on the Hall either way, so it's the same as arguing who should/shouldn't be in anyway. And I don't want to stick to inner circle types, really. I'm just not sold on certain "very very good" players because I don't know if they're historically notable in terms of a Hall of Fame.
Actually, I'm a bit looser with my standards for position players, because there are far more of those, and you can make arguments position-by-position. It's also similar to the "pitchers shouldn't be MVPs unless..." argument. More position players should be in the HOF. I'm not as strict about them.
Quote:
I think this is the case for all the past eras. Who does the average fan know from the 1960s/1970s era? Tom Seaver, Sandy Koufax, Bob Gibson....I'd bet a lot of them have only heard of guys like Don Sutton, Fergie Jenkins, Gaylord Perry, etc. in passing (unless of course they were alive and following baseball at that time).
Good point.
Quote:
Murphy has little value outside of his 5 or 6 best seasons (and unlike a Pedro or Koufax case, his 5 or 6 best seasons weren't historically amazing).
So my two all time favorite players, Dale Murphy and Orel Hershiser, have no place in the Hall. :(
I agree anyway, though I'd vote either in on homerism alone.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
I think Jim Rice has been overlooked, he was perhaps the most feared hitter in the AL and compiled great numbers in just 15 seasons when offense really wasnt great during his time.
.298 Career BA, 2452 HITS, 382 HR, 1451 RBI, .502 SLG, .352 OBA
Best Season 1978: 46 HR, 25 2B, 15 3B, 139 RBI, .315 BA, .600 SLG
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
justanewguy
Yeah, guys in the 70s did fall apart, but so did guys in the 90s. The ones between both decades who didn't fall apart had far bigger workloads in the 70s. I do personally laud the 70s guys for the workloads, but I don't overlook the failures of the 70s. I think it makes the Don Suttons and Phil Niekros even more incredible.
But, are the higher workloads a product of being "more durable", or simply a product of how they were managed? I lean towards it being the latter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ragecage
I think Jim Rice has been overlooked, he was perhaps the most feared hitter in the AL and compiled great numbers in just 15 seasons when offense really wasnt great during his time.
.298 Career BA, 2452 HITS, 382 HR, 1451 RBI, .502 SLG, .352 OBA
Best Season 1978: 46 HR, 25 2B, 15 3B, 139 RBI, .315 BA, .600 SLG
He hasn't been overlooked. He'll be inducted this year, which is going to be a huge mistake in my opinion. Rice had a great 3 year peak - 1977-1979 - but wasn't anything special outside of that. There are a bunch of players just like him that won't sniff the Hall.
Let's do the same thing I did with the pitchers for Rice - years in which he was a top 10 offensive player in the majors. Now, remember, this doesn't take into account that Rice wasn't a particularly good defender, and didn't have much baserunning value (nor does it take into account his massive double play numbers).
Jim Rice:
Top 5: 1978, 1979
Top 10: 1977, 1983, 1986
And outside of those seasons, he wasn't special at all. Add in defense and baserunning, and he likely drops out of the top 10 in a couple of those seasons.
The aforementioned Dale Murphy has a better case than Rice, and Murphy won't be inducted. There's very little difference between Rice and Juan Gonzalez, and Gonzalez wouldn't sniff the Hall even without the steroid rumors. Rice's own teammates Dwight Evans and Fred Lynn have better cases. George Foster, Dave Parker...Ken Singleton, Jack Clark...etc.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
If thats so, then how come all the so called "experts" are saying he should have been in the hall already but because he wasnt media friendly is the reason he has been kept out so long?
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ragecage
If thats so, then how come all the so called "experts" are saying he should have been in the hall already but because he wasnt media friendly is the reason he has been kept out so long?
Because they're "so-called experts", not actually experts.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Jim Rice
Black Ink: Batting - 33 (49) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 176 (57) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 43.0 (114) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 144.5 (89) (Likely HOFer > 100)
So... if he is inducted, I don't think that it'll be any "huge mistake". He's not a slam dunk, but he's not an Edd Roush either.
Anyway, let's not forget that the pitching mound was higher in the early 70's as well.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Jim Rice doesn't belong, and it's different than the argument against Mike Mussina. Although I think there are comparisons that can be drawn between both in terms of whether or not they should be in, Jim Rice's career totals look really bland and unimpressive for HOF totals. And as HGM pointed out, his time at the top wasn't very extensive.
Although with position players, it would be more of a case of the time at the top of their position, and the time in a more broad top group (maybe top 15 instead of top 10) of all position players.
I don't think any player should sit around on the eligible list for so many years. If it takes a player that much time to garner consensus that he should be a Hall of Famer, is he REALLY a Hall of Famer? I mentioned this earlier... I like my Hall of Famers to be clear cut. Anyone who needs to be argued for makes me almost certainly want to say no.
And while I understand that the Hall is already full of players who can compare to Player X or Player Z (if X and Z need arguments), that's something I'm personally opposed to anyway... much of the Hall is not spectacular as it is, but it doesn't change the fact that I don't agree with players that fit in with the players at the bottom of the Hall being in the Hall as well.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Hall of Fame left fielders + Jim Rice, sorted by Career WARP3:
Code:
Player WARP3
Stan Musial 191.5
Ted Williams 156.8
Jim O'Rourke 132.9
Yastrzemski 131.7
Billy Williams 113.1
Fred Clarke 111.6
Ed Delahanty 108.0
Willie Stargell 105.6
Jesse Burkett 101.8
Al Simmons 99.8
Joe Medwick 95.4
Zack Wheat 94.7
Goose Goslin 93.2
Lou Brock 89.9
Joe Kelley 83.3
Jim Rice 80.2
Ralph Kiner 71.3
Heinie Manush 57.3
Chick Hafey 48.3
So he's above a guy with a short career but a phenomenal peak (Kiner), a guy similar to him in terms of overall production but who is overrated because of batting average (Manush), and a guy who got in during the Frankie Frisch era Veteran's Committee which elected many of Frisch's teammates and friends that had no business being the HOF (Hafey).
Rice, when elected, is easily one of the worst left fielders in the Hall of Fame.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
justanewguy
And while I understand that the Hall is already full of players who can compare to Player X or Player Z (if X and Z need arguments), that's something I'm personally opposed to anyway... much of the Hall is not spectacular as it is, but it doesn't change the fact that I don't agree with players that fit in with the players at the bottom of the Hall being in the Hall as well.
Yeah, I basically agree with this. I (obviously) do compare players to the prior inducted members. However, I only use it as part of my argument if the player compares well with the middle-ground or above. If he fits in with a bunch of the worst guys in the Hall, that's no argument. I think it's only worth mentioning if the player would fit in with or best the average Hall of Famer at his position, not the bottom rack.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
By the way, commenting on the pitcher WARP3 chart, Bert Blyleven comes in just slightly ahead of Tom Seaver with 147.7....
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
Hall of Fame left fielders + Jim Rice, sorted by Career WARP3:
I mentioned something this before, and you just inadvertently highlighted the problem. WARP ignores differences in playing eras. It's an excellent tool for evaluating the performances within a season, but it fails when comparing multiple season performances. Especially when those seasons do not overlap.
OPS+ is a much better metric to use for this sort of evaluation.
Their apparently trying to get there with WARP3 according to the description of WARP2, but it seems to be just too simplistic an approach. It's hard to really evaluate though without the actual formula(s). In terms of WARP-3 though, we know from their description that all that their doing is adjusting games to 162, with is certainly not a complete playing era adjustment.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ohms_law
I mentioned something this before, and you just inadvertently highlighted the problem. WARP ignores differences in playing eras. It's an excellent tool for evaluating the performances within a season, but it fails when comparing multiple season performances. Especially when those seasons do not overlap.
OPS+ is a much better metric to use for this sort of evaluation.
Their apparently trying to get there with WARP3 according to the description of WARP2, but it seems to be just too simplistic an approach. It's hard to really evaluate though without the actual formula(s). In terms of WARP-3 though, we know from their description that all that their doing is adjusting games to 162, with is certainly not a complete playing era adjustment.
How does WARP ignore playing era differences? It compares players to their contemporaries and park-adjusts, which is all OPS+ does...except that WARP also includes fielding and stolen bases and the like. I understand the criticisms of WARP, but I certainly don't understand how a metric like OPS+ is better. OPS+ compares players to the park-adjusted league average. WARP compares players to the league replacement level, which adjusts for position (which OPS+ doesn't do), park, etc. WARP is also superior because it accounts for playing time, which OPS+ does not do. The WARP3 adjustment is just an adjustment to even out differences in playing time due purely to schedule length, which puts players on an even playing field as compared to WARP2.
At any rate, for the hell of it, the left fielders listed above sorted by OPS+:
Code:
Player OPS+
Ted Williams 191
Stan Musial 159
Ed Delahanty 152
Ralph Kiner 149
Willie Stargell 147
Jesse Burkett 140
Joe Medwick 134
Jim O'Rourke 133
Billy Williams 133
Joe Kelley 133
Chick Hafey 133
Fred Clarke 132
Al Simmons 132
Yastrzemski 129
Zack Wheat 129
Goose Goslin 128
Jim Rice 128
Heinie Manush 121
Lou Brock 109
Still, Rice comes in at the bottom of the pack. He's ahead of Manush again, and also Brock, but Brock is an entirely different case, as he got in on the strength of 3,000 hits, the stolen base records, and playoff performance. This does put Rice closer to the pack, with a bunch of players being within 5-6 OPS+ points, but that's because OPS+ fails to adjust for the things that really hurt Rice, such as his lack of career value (which is most of it) and his defense.
You can do this sort of thing with the metric of your choice, and Rice is still going to come in at the bottom of the HOF left fielders.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
I'm not disputing that, I'm simply pointing out that WARP does nothing to adjust for playing era. OPS+ doesn't either, but it tries to do less overall as well, which means that the differences in playing era are not magnified.
Offense in general was much lower in the time period that Rice played in, therefore making his accomplishments comparatively more valuable.
Anyway, like I said above, Rice is certainly not a slam dunk HOF'er. He certainly is a valid candidate, though. I have a hard time discounting his accomplishments just because the 90's was offense rich.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ohms_law
I'm not disputing that, I'm simply pointing out that WARP does nothing to adjust for playing era. OPS+ doesn't either, but it tries to do less overall as well, which means that the differences in playing era are not magnified.
Offense in general was much lower in the time period that Rice played in, therefore making his accomplishments comparatively more valuable.
Anyway, like I said above, Rice is certainly not a slam dunk HOF'er. He certainly is a valid candidate, though. I have a hard time discounting his accomplishments just because the 90's was offense rich.
I'm still not following. How is comparing a player to his league not adjusting for era? Jim Rice isn't being compared to the 1990's guys when using WARP (or OPS+). He's being compared to his league.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
The whole league was different in the 1970's and 1980's then it was in the 1990's. WARP doesn't adjust for those differences, it simply adjusts the individuals to the league that they were in. That's a perfect methodology for comparing a player to others within the same season, but it doe not compare a player in one season to a player (even the same player) in another. The value of individual events (hits, doubles, home runs, etc...) differs from season to season. See Pete Palmer's linear weights, for example.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ohms_law
The whole league was different in the 1970's and 1980's then it was in the 1990's. WARP doesn't adjust for those differences, it simply adjusts the individuals to the league that they were in. That's a perfect methodology for comparing a player to others within the same season, but it doe not compare a player in one season to a player (even the same player) in another. The value of individual events (hits, doubles, home runs, etc...) differs from season to season. See Pete Palmer's linear weights, for example.
It's not the perfect way to adjust for era, but I don't think saying that it completely fails to adjust for era is correct at all. Basic stats like average, on-base percentage, and slugging-percentage FAIL to adjust for era. Adjusting for league IS a method of adjusting for era. Using a linear weights based stat I would say is probably better, but I'm unaware of any easily accessible stats based on linear weights. I think that the WARP stat (completely unrelated to BP's) that Dan Rosenheck of Baseball Think Factory created may do just that, but I haven't read his methodology at all, although it is available (here, I believe, in the comments.). Like I said, I haven't looked into it, so I'm not sure if it uses a linear weightsesque system or not.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
At any rate, for the hell of it, the left fielders listed above sorted by OPS+:
Code:
Player OPS+
Ted Williams 191
Stan Musial 159
Ed Delahanty 152
Ralph Kiner 149
Willie Stargell 147
Jesse Burkett 140
Joe Medwick 134
Jim O'Rourke 133
Billy Williams 133
Joe Kelley 133
Chick Hafey 133
Fred Clarke 132
Al Simmons 132
Yastrzemski 129
Zack Wheat 129
Goose Goslin 128
Jim Rice 128
Heinie Manush 121
Lou Brock 109
Wow... It's Ted Williams and then everyone else. What a remarkable player.
I'm curious how you might rank the greatest HITTERS ever (just hitting). I'd go Ruth-Gehrig-Williams-Bonds... after that I'm not sure who I'd put.
Quote:
Still, Rice comes in at the bottom of the pack. He's ahead of Manush again, and also Brock, but Brock is an entirely different case, as he got in on the strength of 3,000 hits, the stolen base records, and playoff performance. This does put Rice closer to the pack, with a bunch of players being within 5-6 OPS+ points, but that's because OPS+ fails to adjust for the things that really hurt Rice, such as his lack of career value (which is most of it) and his defense.
You can do this sort of thing with the metric of your choice, and Rice is still going to come in at the bottom of the HOF left fielders.
Rice was very, very good but not HOF. It's an argument that's been around for years and years now. What I hate about it is, even after all the argument and uncertainty, he's going to get in. Then they're going to put Andre Dawson in by the same argument. Then who? Greg Vaughn?
What I hate about Jim Rice in the Hall is that it pushes the line further outward. Seriously, before you know it you may see tons of outfielders in the HOF that hit really well, weren't spectacular, were not good defensively, and are not legendary by any means.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
justanewguy
I'm curious how you might rank the greatest HITTERS ever (just hitting). I'd go Ruth-Gehrig-Williams-Bonds... after that I'm not sure who I'd put.
I'd out Williams and Bonds both ahead of Gehrig, but I think that's a fair top 4.
Quote:
Rice is very, very good but not HOF. It's an argument that's been around for years and years now. What I hate about it is, even after all the argument and uncertainty, he's going to get in. Then they're going to put Andre Dawson in by the same argument. Then who? Greg Vaughn?
I, personally, wouldn't put Dawson in, but his argument is much stronger than that of Rice, mostly because Dawson played fantastic defense in center field for a good portion of his career. Baseball Think Factory's Hall of Merit inducted Dawson, and I respect their opinion a lot as their voting populace consists of some incredibly smart people. However, it is notable that when they ranked their center field inductees Dawson came in last.
Quote:
What I hate about Jim Rice in the Hall is that it pushes the line further outward. Seriously, before you know it you may see tons of outfielders in the HOF that hit really well, weren't spectacular, were not good defensively, and are not legendary by any means.
Right. That's another reason I don't like Rice for the Hall. I do think that he significantly lowers the bar for corner outfielders.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
It's not the perfect way to adjust for era, but I don't think saying that it completely fails to adjust for era is correct at all.
It's a much to simplistic approach which (as is demonstrated here) leads to misuse. In that respect, it's a failure in my eyes.
I'm not saying that Rice would come out better with a metric that uses proper weighting, by the way. Heck, he could come out worse for all I know (although I suspect that the opposite would be true). What I am saying is that using WARP to compare players across playing eras is a fundamental methodology flaw. Saying "it's the best available" is no excuse to misuse statistics. Using an imperfect methodology is actually worse then not evaluating the question at all, since the answers will be misleading.
Quote:
Right. That's another reason I don't like Rice for the Hall. I do think that he significantly lowers the bar for corner outfielders.
I don't see many other players who match Rice, especially combines with the recognition that he received for his accomplishments from contemporaries. Who, exactly, are these "tons of outfielders" who Jim Rice's induction suddenly brings into the picture?
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ohms_law
It's a much to simplistic approach which (as is demonstrated here) leads to misuse. In that respect, it's a failure in my eyes.
I'm not saying that Rice would come out better with a metric that uses proper weighting, by the way. Heck, he could come out worse for all I know (although I suspect that the opposite would be true). What I am saying is that using WARP to compare players across playing eras is a fundamental methodology flaw. Saying "it's the best available" is no excuse to misuse statistics. Using an imperfect methodology is actually worse then not evaluating the question at all, since the answers will be misleading.
I just have to disagree. I don't think it's a flawed use of the stat. I think that comparing to contemporaries (and only contemporaries) is a fine way of adjusting for era.
Quote:
I don't see many other players who match Rice, especially combines with the recognition that he received for his accomplishments from contemporaries. Who, exactly, are these "tons of outfielders" who Jim Rice's induction suddenly brings into the picture?
Purely speaking relative contemporaries...Dave Parker, George Foster, Ken Singleton, Jack Clark, Dale Murphy, Dwight Evans, Fred Lynn....
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ohms_law
I don't see many other players who match Rice, especially combines with the recognition that he received for his accomplishments from contemporaries. Who, exactly, are these "tons of outfielders" who Jim Rice's induction suddenly brings into the picture?
It isn't "tons" per se... but if you consider how easy it is, especially in this decade, to be a great hitting LF or RF for a few years, it's not totally out of the question.
Greg Vaughn is the first guy that comes to mind. I'm more concerned about a precedent that it sets for 10, 15 or 20 years down the road, when some of the "elite slugger for 3 years and 300 or 350+ career HRs" guys start to become eligible.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
justanewguy
Greg Vaughn is the first guy that comes to mind. I'm more concerned about a precedent that it sets for 10, 15 or 20 years down the road, when some of the "elite slugger for 3 years and 300 or 350+ career HRs" guys start to become eligible.
If we expand the field past just Rice's contemporaries, a bunch more players enter the picture. But, I'm sure that the counter to that would be "You can't compare him to the guys in the higher offensive era."
Much more closer than Greg Vaughn are Juan Gonzalez, Albert Belle, Moises Alou, Ellis Burks, David Justice, Jose Canseco, Jim Edmonds, Bobby Abreu, Brian Giles....Now, obviously, Rice was a much better player than some of those guys, but not all of them.
Even so, just using other 1970s/1980s guys, there's a bunch of players that wouldn't fit anybody's idea of a Hall of Famer. George Foster and Dave Parker, in particular, are near exact duplicates of Rice. Parker has the most career value, and Foster the least, of the three, but they all had nearly identical peaks, both in terms of production AND timing, as each of their peaks came in the 1977-1979 time frame.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Well, I could point you to some statistics resources and you could figure out why you shouldn't disagree...
Anyway:
Rice 144.5
Parker 124.0
Foster 91.0
Singleton 38.0
Clark 27.5
Murphy 116.0
Evans 67.5
Lynn 85.0
It's not even a competition.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ohms_law
Well, I could point you to some statistics resources and you could figure out why you shouldn't disagree...
Anyway:
Rice 144.5
Parker 124.0
Foster 91.0
Singleton 38.0
Clark 27.5
Murphy 116.0
Evans 67.5
Lynn 85.0
It's not even a competition.
C'mon Ohms....THAT'S a misuse of statistics.
HOF Monitor was created to assess how likely a player is to make the Hall of Fame, so all it does is confirm what we already know - Rice is going to make the Hall, everyone else won't.
It tells you nothing of which players were better OR which players provided more value.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Can you explain why he's more likely to make the Hall, but the others aren't, though?
HOF monitor is at least a standardized methodology.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
Much more closer than Greg Vaughn are Juan Gonzalez, Albert Belle, Moises Alou, Ellis Burks, David Justice, Jose Canseco, Jim Edmonds, Bobby Abreu, Brian Giles....Now, obviously, Rice was a much better player than some of those guys, but not all of them.
Yeah, Rice was better than most of them. I think many of these players named suffer from "personality issues." Especially Canseco and Belle.
Out of these guys, I'd probably go for Edmonds for the HOF, and that's about it. I like Alou's longevity. I'm not really feeling like looking at any of these guys' careers at the moments, but I think Edmonds is asbsolutely a HOFer, and Alou is roughly borderline. I don't think I'd vote for him. Although his career OPS is above .900, isn't it? I'm guessing his OPS+ for career lies around 115 or 120.
Quote:
Even so, just using other 1970s/1980s guys, there's a bunch of players that wouldn't fit anybody's idea of a Hall of Famer. George Foster and Dave Parker, in particular, are near exact duplicates of Rice. Parker has the most career value, and Foster the least, of the three, but they all had nearly identical peaks, both in terms of production AND timing, as each of their peaks came in the 1977-1979 time frame.
I think Jim Rice is better than his contemporaries that you're naming, as ohms has pointed out, but I'm not ready to say he has any business in the HOF. I don't think Foster or Parker are quite where he is in terms of HOF standards (the whole picture).
Again, my concern lies in the 90s guys you mentioned, and guys that are currently playing that could have similar careers.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ohms_law
Can you explain why he's more likely to make the Hall, but the others aren't, though?
HOF monitor is at least a standardized methodology.
He does well in the things that writers overvalue, namely batting average and RBI.
HOF Monitor looks at batting average, hits, home runs, RBIs, doubles, awards, team playoff performance, and position. Hardly a good way to actually evaluate a player. In fact, it's an absolutely terrible way to evaluate a player.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
justanewguy
Out of these guys, I'd probably go for Edmonds for the HOF, and that's about it. I like Alou's longevity. I'm not really feeling like looking at any of these guys' careers at the moments, but I think Edmonds is asbsolutely a HOFer, and Alou is roughly borderline. I don't think I'd vote for him.
I think Alou is worse than borderline, a very good player, not close to the Hall.
Edmonds, I definitely leans towards yes...great peak, plus he was a center fielder and played very good defense.
Quote:
I think Jim Rice is better than his contemporaries that you're naming, as ohms has pointed out, but I'm not ready to say he has any business in the HOF.
I put his two teammates, Fred Lynn and Dwight Evans, ahead of him. I'd also put Murphy ahead of him. I think he's squarely in line with Parker and Foster. None of them are HOFers to me.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
justanewguy
Although his career OPS is above .900, isn't it? I'm guessing his OPS+ for career lies around 115 or 120.
.885 and 128, I just looked. He's both worse and better than I thought he was.
.885 career is pretty impressive, so is 128. They'll look at his H and HR totals and say "no" then eventually look at his averages and say "maybe."
I wonder if he'll make it...
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
But that's the standard that is used, regardless of whether or not it should be. You're argument is that Rice expands the hall, but according to the metrics that those who cast votes actually use, he doesn't appear to do so. I don't see how arguing against Rice based on the expanding the Hall argument is valid.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
justanewguy
.885 and 128, I just looked. He's both worse and better than I thought he was.
.885 career is pretty impressive, so is 128. They'll look at his H and HR totals and say "no" then eventually look at his averages and say "maybe."
I wonder if he'll make it...
I highly doubt he even lasts on the ballot. No star power whatsoever.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
I put his two teammates, Fred Lynn and Dwight Evans, ahead of him. I'd also put Murphy ahead of him. I think he's squarely in line with Parker and Foster. None of them are HOFers to me.
Murphy is definitely ahead. Those back-to-back seasons are worth a LOT in my mind, but his career totals don't look good when you're talking HOF. He also didn't have the length of time in CF that Edmonds had.
Edmonds is a definite; Murphy is as good as you can be without being in the HOF. I think he more or less defines baseball's "tallest midget" standard.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
I highly doubt he even lasts on the ballot. No star power whatsoever.
I agree. That'll be his downfall. He was never considered to be "the best" or really even that close. But I do think his career was a lot better than people probably realize. Amazing consistency.
-
Re: Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ohms_law
But that's the standard that is used, regardless of whether or not it should be. You're argument is that Rice expands the hall, but according to the metrics that those who cast votes actually use, he doesn't appear to do so. I don't see how arguing against Rice based on the expanding the Hall argument is valid.
He's squarely in the bottom rung of Hall of Fame corner outfielders, no matter how you look at it. Such players lower the bar for the Hall in my opinion.
