E=I*R
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.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
o
I highly doubt he even lasts on the ballot. No star power whatsoever.Originally Posted by justanewguy
Unregistered User
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.
Unregistered User
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.
o
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.
E=I*R
How, exactly?
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Unregistered User
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.
E=I*R
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.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Unregistered User
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.
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.
E=I*R
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.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
o
I really don't think Schilling would be in the bottom-rung. There's a good amount of worse pitchers in there...
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).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.
E=I*R
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?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
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Unregistered User
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.
o
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.
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.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.
o
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote