Hall of Fame biases

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I don't know about these potential "lock" milestones. Ignoring the steroid issue, it may SEEM like that, but really, all the players that have reached those milestones and have been inducted were legitimately HoF-caliber players anyway, except maybe Lou Brock with 3,000 hits, but he had a whole lot of other things going for him (the steal records, the playoff performance), and a couple of the 19th century 300 win pitchers.

I think the real test case will be when/if someone like Garrett Anderson or Johnny Damon reaches 3,000 hits.

---

Anderson, yeah, but I doubt he'l get to 3,000. Damon still has a decent shot at it, but he'll also may have several WS rings by that time. And the bias in favor of having good teammates is probably about the strongest one when it comes to the HoF.

Another bias not mentioned in the OP that we have discussed a bit here is that the voters will under-value someone who is good at pretty much everything, but doesn't have any one thing that they do extremely well. Though I think that matters less in HoF discussions as in say, MVP voting, because the guys who do everything well without doing any one thing extremely well will probably last long enough to get in just on longetivity.

B. Larkin!

actionjackson it appears you don't believe in intangibles.

Also, I'm going to have to disagree. Derek Jeter will get in on the 1st ballot but he shouldn't get in until a bit later IMO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989

http://www.inmowetrust.com/img/nickpuntobig.jpg

Hall of fame.

---

hahahahahahahaa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

actionjackson it appears you don't believe in intangibles.

Also, I'm going to have to disagree. Derek Jeter will get in on the 1st ballot but he shouldn't get in until a bit later IMO

---

Of course you're going to disagree - because everybody else agrees on it so you have the need to be completely insane.

Nevermind the fact that there's no distinction between a 1st ballot guy and a later guy. If he's a deserving Hall of Fame, he belongs in from the first ballot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Of course you're going to disagree - because everybody else agrees on it so you have the need to be completely insane.

Nevermind the fact that there's no distinction between a 1st ballot guy and a later guy. If he's a deserving Hall of Fame, he belongs in from the first ballot.

---

Kiner is as much of a hall of famer as Ruth is

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

Punto is as much of a hall of famer as Ruth is

---

Fixed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Nevermind the fact that there's no distinction between a 1st ballot guy and a later guy. If he's a deserving Hall of Fame, he belongs in from the first ballot.

---

Disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

Disagree.

---

You can't disagree with a fact (well, okay, everyone else understands this, but you'll disagree with anything as long as it makes you different). There is no distinction. They are all just Hall of Famers.

And even if there WAS a distinction, Derek Jeter would be deserving of first ballot status.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

PERHAPS a combination of the two. I have little doubt that 3B are underrated by the BBWAA. Ron Santo on the outside looking in. Eddie Mathews taking 5 years to get in. The standard for the BBWAA for third basemen seems to be Wade Boggs, yet it isn't the same at other positions where players like Andre Dawson and Jim Rice wind up getting in and similar or better players (in terms of value) at third base drop off the ballot without a second thought - Darrell Evans, Graig Nettles, Robin Ventura - even if you knock some off their WAR, they're at or higher than the Dawson/Rice/Puckett group of outfielders.


But he had 7 top-10 finishes in the Cy Young voting!!!!

---

That wouldn't be because despite decrying stats geeks everywhere, the BBWAA has their own pet stats that they look for, while demonizing any stat that comes from the stats revolution or has the faintest aroma of "Moneyball" would it? Truth be told, these people are scared. They see newspapers shutting down everywhere and more and more knowledgeable baseball fans turning to blogs and superwickedawesome stats websites and feel their power slipping away. They look back wistfully on the days when they were the only game in town and do what anyone would in their shoes, they cling desperately to that power. I mean look at 3 of their last 4 choices: Gossage (the best of the 3 in my mind and the only closer from the Fingers/Sutter/Smith/Goose era that belongs), Rice (downright laughable) and Dawson (Umm, let me think about that...No). The 4th one (Rickey Henderson), well we all know the saying about a blind squirrel right?

Truth be told, I have a hard time believing that even Dave Winfield belongs, but I value defense and while he wasn't as bad as Manny defensively it's close, yet he was awarded 7 GG, while Chet Lemon was given the finger? Now, we're back to the blind squirrels again. If you're going to be close to Manny Ramirez with the glove, you better be as good as him with the bat and the big guy isn't even within spitting distance in that department. That's why nobody will ever be able to convince me about the legitimacy of Dawson and Rice and don't even start in on me about Joe f**king Carter.

You often talk about peak HGM. Winfield had a total of 6 4.0+ WAR seasons in a 22 year career and that's good enough? His HoF level peak (1976 through 1979) was over before he left San Diego and that's what made him the highest paid player in baseball (at the time) when he signed with the Yankee$ in the 1980-81 offseason for 10 years at a staggering total of about $25 million. From 1980 through 1995, he recorded a grand total of two 4.0+ WAR seasons (1984 and 1988). He didn't even have another 4.0+ WAR per 650 plate appearance season other than these six in his career. Oh sure, he had "that aura", charisma, character, leadership blah, blah, blah and yeah I can read his totals: 1669 runs (29th all-time), 3110 hits (19th), 540 2B (tied 27th), 465 HR (31st), 1833 RBI (15th) etc, etc, etc, but I can also read other totals like 12358 Plate Appearances (12th all-time) and 8422 Outs Made (7th all-time), which are two categories we rarely hear about from commentators waxing on about a player's totals and interestingly enough are the two categories in which he ranks the highest of all the categories I mentioned. What's more important? The breathtaking totals or the rate at which they were achieved? There's room for both of course, but it's worth thinking about. I'm all for players with lengthy careers compiling impressive totals in offensive categories, but the HoF to me is about celebrating excellence over at least a career that lasted at least ten years, not very goodness over a 20+ year career. *ducks bricks hurled in his general direction by Dave Winfield fans and angry Minnesotans* ;)

The problem with putting in a Rice or a Puckett, aside from the fact that they just don't belong (uh-oh, Minnesotans reeeaaally hate me now) is that the next time a player of their ilk comes along their supporters can point to the fact that Rice and Puckett are in and justify their guy's induction because he's better in whatever category they choose for their justification. Then we wind up with a Hall of some very good players instead of a Hall of the best to ever play the game. Also regarding voting, it is getting beyond tiresome to listen to writers and media types drone on and on about so and so who does all the little things right and excels in all facets of the game during the season and then when it comes time for the HoF vote, screw everything else, it's all about batting average, homeruns, ribbies, wins etc. Hypocrite much? I count at least four guys on that ballot who did things worthy of in-season droning, but did not get enough HoF votes to get in: Barry Larkin, Alan Trammell, Tim Raines, and Roberto Alomar. The writers chose the safe choice, the choice that lazy fans and lazy writers who can't bother to look past average, hits, homeruns, and ribbies would have no problem with over the better players. You can add Bert Blyleven, Mark McGwire and Edgar Martinez to the above 4...And so it goes.

As for 3B, they're definitely under appreciated by the writers. It's a very difficult position to play well and there aren't a lot of great hitters at the position. I don't know how long it will take but the exclusion of Ron Santo, Sal Bando, Ken Boyer, Robin Ventura, Graig Nettles, and Stan Hack make it easy to see that the writers don't know what to do with the position unless they're handed a Schmidt or a Mathews or a Brett or a Boggs. I would say third basemen probably have the highest per capita rejection rate of all the positions, so you're probably bang on with the BBWAA comment. Not a big fan of Darrell Evans for the Hall though. He had Gene Tenace type hitting skills (which don't tend to inspire writers or Veterans Committees) and slightly above average defense, thanks to his move across the diamond to 1B. He was an average defensive 3B and a terrific defensive 1B. He comes up just short for me in the overall though. I try to weight WAR as a counting stat evenly with WAR as a rate in my evaluation of HoF worthiness. I have him in a group with Larry Doyle, Kiki Cuyler, Mike Griffin (CF), Jose Cruz Sr., Darryl Strawberry, and the newly minted Andre Dawson. All fall just short for me, but WTF do I know? :D

Re: Morris: yay, seven top 10 Cy finishes and his longtime rival and by far the better pitcher of the two Dave Stieb.....*drumroll*.....4! Go writers. You continue to amaze me with your ability to make me :rolleyes: Remind me never to go to the racetrack with you and pick whatever horse that you're betting on to win, because your ability to pick a winner sucks! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

actionjackson it appears you don't believe in intangibles.

Also, I'm going to have to disagree. Derek Jeter will get in on the 1st ballot but he shouldn't get in until a bit later IMO

---

Yes Einstein, I don't believe in intangibles when it comes to HoF selection. Are they useful to a team over the grind of a 162 game season? Of course they are. But unless you can quantify them and by the definition of the word you can't, then they have no business in any HoF discussion. See: Eckstein, David; Erstad, Darin; Punto, Nick; Rowand, Aaron; Johnson, Reed and other scrappy hustling players who "leave it all out on the field" and "give 110%" blah blah blah. They all bring wonderful qualities to the table and having 1 or 2 on your team as backups and occasional starters is a prudent idea, but you wouldn't want a team full of gritty hard nosed players with decent but not overwhelming skill (well maybe you would), unless you're prepared to lose a lot of games and the fans that come with winning.

Actionjackson, it's true that HGM puts a lot of value on peak, but it's not clear that that is the best position to take when it comes to the Hall. IMO the Hall is about career acheivement, so I put more emphasis on longetivity and career totals--not that I completely ignore peak. What I'm saying is that while, for example, realizing that OBP is more important than AVE when evaluating hitting is something that is objective (that is, it is objectively provable to anyone who cares to examine the evidence intelligently and without bias), how peak vs. longetivity should be weighted when evaluating players for the Hall is subjective--there is no objectively correct answer.

Also, what did you mean by "in-season droning"? If it's a typo, I have no idea what it was supposed to be; if it's not a typo, I have no idea what it means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dps

Actionjackson, it's true that HGM puts a lot of value on peak, but it's not clear that that is the best position to take when it comes to the Hall. IMO the Hall is about career acheivement, so I put more emphasis on longetivity and career totals--not that I completely ignore peak. What I'm saying is that while, for example, realizing that OBP is more important than AVE when evaluating hitting is something that is objective (that is, it is objectively provable to anyone who cares to examine the evidence intelligently and without bias), how peak vs. longetivity should be weighted when evaluating players for the Hall is subjective--there is no objectively correct answer.

Also, what did you mean by "in-season droning"? If it's a typo, I have no idea what it was supposed to be; if it's not a typo, I have no idea what it means.

---

Talking about how so and so contributes so much in all areas of the game: defense, speed, hitting, doing the little things etc etc etc. Basically they beat the concept of the "little things" to death in season, yet when it comes time to vote on the Hall they cuddle up to their old familiar friends: batting average, homeruns, RBI, hits and leave more worthy candidates who may not be as strong in these categories sitting on the sidelines. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dps

Actionjackson, it's true that HGM puts a lot of value on peak, but it's not clear that that is the best position to take when it comes to the Hall.

---

I wouldn't really call myself a big peak guy, honestly. I'm for induction for pure peak cases (Sandy Koufax) but also for induction of pure career cases (Don Sutton). Actionjackson mentioned Dave Winfield - I'm perfectly fine with him being in the Hall and would have voted for him had I had a vote.

Basically, I take each player on an individual basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I wouldn't really call myself a big peak guy, honestly. I'm for induction for pure peak cases (Sandy Koufax) but also for induction of pure career cases (Don Sutton). Actionjackson mentioned Dave Winfield - I'm perfectly fine with him being in the Hall and would have voted for him had I had a vote.

Basically, I take each player on an individual basis.

---

Agree with taking each player on an individual basis. Joe Jackson and Jackie Robinson are two examples of guys who compiled enough WAR in their short careers to get in, but then you look at the rate at which they compiled it and it's dizzying. Both are obvious HoFers (in a vacuum - Jackson's off-field issues aside). Pete Rose (gambling issues again) is the ultimate example of a HoFer in the compiler category. The body of work is awesome. The rate at which it was compiled is tortoise like, but he's still a HoFer (again in a vacuum) because of the phenomenal, overwhelming totals that he compiled. Then you have guys like John McGraw, Frank Chance and especially Charlie Keller. Their WAR totals don't impress much at all, but the rate at which they were achieved is off the charts. Keller wound up with 43.3 WAR in 4604 PA. Jim Rice had 41.5 WAR in 9058 PA and who's in the HoF? Why, "The Most Feared Hitter of His Generation" of course. The point is you have to look at each player on an individual basis, unless of course it's Joe Carter. The Hall has room for the compilers and room for the supernovas and of course the compiler/supernovas like Ruth, Bonds, Cobb, Mays et al. Figuring out who they are is really tough once you get away from the extreme cases and down to the borderline ones, but that's what makes it fun. :)