How, exactly?
Printable View
How, exactly?
It's kind of a proverbial catch 22. There inherently has to be a bottom rung. But the absolute bottom rung guy always has the one guy just below him. Then people start arguing for that guy. Then the new guy's the bottom rung. Then there's people arguing for the guy below HIM. The more borderline HOFers you add, the more avenues you add for standards, arguments, and most importantly: precedence... for lesser players entering the Hall.
As for me (can't speak for HGM), essentially, I want to see the fewest bottom rung players added as possible. In my opinion, if a player needs to have years of argument, there's no way he's a HOF. HOFers should be clearcut to anyone who follows the game even remotely closely, for the most part. Most of the bottom-rungers should be guys who did something spectacular and/or notable in their careers. This is what would give a guy like Schilling a huge boost (even in MY mind), to name an example. He'd be bottom-rung in the Hall, but has history going for him. I think that's Schilling's best argument, just like I think Dale Murphy's best argument is the back-to-back MVPs and GGs in CF. These are things that outshine their total careers from a historical standpoint.
I could buy into that if it somehow became a standard (in other words, requiring unanimous votes for induction, or at least very close to it). It's the narrow hall argument at it's most extreme, basically. The problem is that's not the way that the Hall Of Fame inductions have been held to date, so it wouldn't be fair to change the standards in that manner now without going back and reevaluating those already inducted.
I don't really buy into the slippery slope argument here, regardless. Different people have different standards that they set. Different people even have differing criteria that they use in their evaluations. With that being true, I don't see how a slippery slope argument applies.
I think I make it sound a little more extreme than I truly feel about it. I don't mind Jim Rice in the Hall, I'm just unsure if I'd put him on my ballot. But I'm not a writer, so it doesn't matter. If I had to make up my own baseball HOF, he wouldn't be on it. I don't think it's a travesty, but I tend to wonder at a guy that spends so long on the ballot without getting elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Jim Rice lacked the longevity that puts players of his make over the top.
It's interesting... looking at his most similar players by age, you get a lot of Duke Snider (HOFer, similar peak, but Snider was better overall) and Dick Allen (not a HOFer, similar overall career, but Rice had a better peak).
I almost think Dick Allen is possibly more HOF worthy. I never realized how good he was. Fewer career numbers in fewer at bats, but better peripherals.
See, my whole problem with the "who should and who shouldn't" question is that I simply don't know. I'd need to put together more info in order to make picks that I would be happy with, which is why you'll rarely see me talk about specific players who I really think should be in. That's why I always end up looking at the HOF Monitor (alongside HOF Standards), since it's at least a consistent methodology.
I really don't think Schilling would be in the bottom-rung. There's a good amount of worse pitchers in there...Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
You think Rice had a better peak? I don't think he was close. Jim Rice's best OPS+ was 157, a number Allen bested 8 times in relatively full seasons. Allen's career OPS+ was 156. Allen is a very underrated player, mostly because he was known as a real jackass and a player very few liked to be around. But based purely on the performance record, Allen was an incredibly great hitter (poor defensive value though). I'd put Allen in my Hall way before Rice (I'm undecided about Allen overall though).Quote:
It's interesting... looking at his most similar players by age, you get a lot of Duke Snider (HOFer, similar peak, but Snider was better overall) and Dick Allen (not a HOFer, similar overall career, but Rice had a better peak).
I just don't see why HOF Monitor should be considered at all. When discussing if a player will make it, yeah, sure, although I think it's a bit outdated now, but it's really an absolutely terrible tool to objectively judge players by. It completely ignores baserunning, defense (except for a slight position adjustment), walks, park adjustment, league adjustment, era adjustment, etc. It's a downright atrocious tool to evaluate players with. It's only usefulness is in assessing a player's chances with the voters. Same goes for HOF Standards to a slightly lesser extent.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
The one piece of the evaluation that you're missing is that it closely mirrors how players have been judged to date. Is it fair to the current and future candidates to change the evaluation now? You seem to be saying yes, but you're not providing any reasons why. I imagine that your reasons are based on better performance measures, which is great, but how does that address the fairness issue?Quote:
I just don't see why HOF Monitor should be considered at all. When discussing if a player will make it, yeah, sure, although I think it's a bit outdated now, but it's really an absolutely terrible tool to objectively judge players by. It completely ignores baserunning, defense (except for a slight position adjustment), walks, park adjustment, league adjustment, era adjustment, etc. It's a downright atrocious tool to evaluate players with. It's only usefulness is in assessing a player's chances with the voters. Same goes for HOF Standards to a slightly lesser extent.
Edit/Delete Message
What I mean is, in raw numbers, Rice's peak was better because of the power numbers. Those have weight when it comes to the HOF, because they contribute to the career totals. For instance, It's Glavine's raw numbers that really push him into the HOF. I'm not saying Rice's raw numbers put him there, but in HOF terms, he had a "better peak." I also noted that Allen's "peripherals" were better, and I thought he was more fit for the Hall of Fame. I only ever knew that he was a good player and... well... a dick. I didn't know until before that post that his OPS and OPS+ were so good. He also had a lot of speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
But it's not a hard and fast rule. It's not HOW players have been judged. It's an estimate of the likelihood of them getting inducted. It's not meant to say who should be inducted, or even who should be inducted based on past standards. James, the creator of both, freely admits that. He developed the metrics as a way of assessing the candidates' chances, and that's it. There's plenty of players that have surpassed the HOF standards/Monitor and not been inducted.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
It's impossible to just quickly change the evaluation. The writers vote, they control the evaluation. The only way it'll change is through time, naturally.Quote:
Is it fair to the current and future candidates to change the evaluation now?
People now are more aware of things like park factors (thanks in large part to Coors Field) and era factors (thanks to the huge offensive boon in the late 90s). In the future, the voters will start to shift along with the advances in analysis. It's not unfair, it's...what happens. It's called progress. Even now, the voters of today analyze the candidates much differently than they did when the Hall first started.
Allen's raw numbers are poor (well, in comparison to Rice, at their peaks) because he played in the lowest offensive era since the Deadball Era, along with relatively poor hitters parks. His AIR score, which is a stat that shows the relative offensive environment the player played in, accounting for both league and park, is 93, where 100 is historically average. For contrast, Jim Rice's is 102.Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
And yeah, in "HOF terms", because they tend not to look past raw numbers and don't adjust at all for anything, you're right.
It comes as close as possible to expressing numerically how players have been judged. Obviously it's not exact, but it works out close enough to be as accurate as possible.Quote:
It's not HOW players have been judged.
Which is basically my point. People have their opinions. To some, RBI is still important. You or I may not agree, but that's their opinion. I don't think that ignoring others opinions is a good way to convince people to change their minds on things.Quote:
It's impossible to change the evaluation. The writers vote, they control the evaluation. The only way it'll change is through time, naturally.
You really don't see how it can be unfair to change the measuring stick against which players are measured, though?
No. It's not unfair. It has happened, and will happen. Thought processes change over time. We find out new things. We learn more.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Take Larry Walker. 57.9 HOF Standards, 147 HOF Monitor. He's got a chance to make the Hall sure, but I think hes' going to fall short. Why? Because people are more aware of park and era factors now, even if they don't really know it. It's just sort of intuitive...he played in Coors, oh, his numbers are inflated.
But, at any rate, I don't believe I've advocated just up and changing the HOF evaluation. I don't even know how I would advocate that, considering it's next to impossible because the only way for it to change is naturally, through time. I have my own opinions of what makes a player a Hall of Famer, just like everybody else. I've given the explanations behind my opinions, but that's not advocating "changing the measuring stick". That'll happen whether I, you, or anybody wants it to or not.
I just did a search. The name "Nolan Ryan" has not come up in this thread. Not once. He spans both eras...
Usually not in any guided fashion, though. Trying to force a change can cause a sudden change, which is unfair no matter how you justify it.Quote:
Thought processes change over time.
That's not what's occurring, though. There's undoubtedly a decentralized campaign to change the minds of people in general, which many threads here play right into. I happen to agree with the goal so I'm not really against that, but I still feel that it's at least somewhat unfair.Quote:
the only way for it to change is naturally, through time.
And you're incorrect about feeling that your opinion doesn't make any difference. This site alone touches many people, and expressing our views here gives us all a voice on an international stage. Sure, we don't vote, but we can affect the opinions of those who are participants of this forum. To think that the affect it only limited to this forum is a very narrow view (The opposite is also true, of course).
I don't know whose mentioned "forcing" anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
I said that? :confused:Quote:
And you're incorrect about feeling that your opinion doesn't make any difference.
Basically, right here:
Quote:
That'll happen whether I, you, or anybody wants it to or not.
That's just saying that thought processes will change over time no matter what. People's opinions matter in HOW they'll change.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Well, HGM, a couple of thoughts on your post #27 in this thread.
1) Your WARP3 stats further illustrate that, not only was Clemens a greater pitcher than Maddux, but, as I previously noted, it really isnt that close, and..
2) Did you really refer to Tom Seaver as a non-elite pitcher?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampdog
Clemens is a cheat.
If you say so...
No, although rereading the post, I can see how it comes off that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampdog
Meaning the non-Gibson/Palmer/Seaver guys. I see where the confusion is though, heh.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Article by Dan Rosenheck in NY Times, arguing for Mussina's induction.
I'm also doing another chart (mostly because I'm bored), that has the amount of times the players finished in the top 5 and top 10 of their league (ie. not the whole major leagues) in ERA+.
Okay, I've included the pitchers I've been using the whole time, plus a couple others (Jack Morris, Bert Blyleven, Nolan Ryan):
First, sorted by the number of times they led their league in ERA+:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...ff/leading.jpg
This just shows the sheer dominance of Clemens, Johnson, and Pedro. Most pitchers had one or no first place finishes. Mussina, Smoltz, and Schilling, three of the guys talked about most in this thread, never led their league in ERA+.
Second, sorted by the number of times they finished in the top 5 of their league IN ERA+;
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...Stuff/top5.jpg
Still shows the dominance of Clemens, Pedro, and Johnson, but more guys show up with a bunch of years now. Mussina and Blyleven are tied with Martinez and Gibson, but that obviously doesn't show that Martinez's top 5 finishes included 5 first place finishes, and that the approximate level of the top 5 finishes of Martinez and Gibson were much higher than those of Mussina's and Blyleven's. Even so, it does show that Mussina and Blyleven spent a good chunk of time near the top of their league.
Lastly, sorted by the number of times in the top 10 of their league in ERA+:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...tuff/top10.jpg
Interesting that Blyleven and Mussina were only bested by Seaver and Clemens. Again, this doesn't illustrate that Mussina and Blyleven never had huge gigantic peaks like a number of the other pitchers. It does illustrate, though, that these guys managed to stay close to the top of their league much longer than most other pitchers do. Hunter and Morris are clearly the "odd men out", and they also happen to be the only two pitchers on this list that I don't think belong in the Hall at all.
so for the most part mussina and blyleven were consistently good, as in the top 10, maybe the top 5, but they were never the best.
you left off maddux, how dare you!Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Using ERA+, which doesn't factor in playing time (other than having qualified for the ERA title). VORP does, and Mussina was tops in the AL twice in that (haven't checked Blyleven).Quote:
Originally Posted by Santiago66