THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I know his supposedly underwhelming career totals are used against him a lot, but I think the fundamental reason for all the resistance to considering him for the HoF is simply because he was a DH. Now, I have no problem with factoring in defense when talking about a candidates worthiness, but it almost never is done for anybody else. Unless a guy is perceived to be among the elite with the glove, fielding isn’t even mentioned in these discussions. So if Martinez played a wretchedly bad first base, everyone would consider him to be a no-brainer. People would just look at his offensive numbers, say “He was a great hitter” and he would be voted in with nary a dissent. But because he mostly didn’t play the field at all (I say “mostly” because he had over 500 games at third which people completely forget), all perspective is lost and he is dismissed outright. That’s a travesty.

What’s really sad is that the same writers who sneer at Edgar will be tripping over themselves to vote for David Ortiz. “He was CLUTCH!”

Seems to me you could make a pretty decent argument against Boggs truly belonging in the HOF. He wasn’t a particularly useful player the last 4 years of his career, but he stuck around to get to 3000 hits.

I don’t know if Edgar is a HOF player or not, but I don’t think comparing anyone to Boggs is the way to support someone’s candidacy.

You could probably make a lot of players look like Hall of Famers if you compared them to Boggs, Tony Perez, and Bruce Sutter.

I’m not sure he’d be a shoo-in if he were a horrible-fielding 1B Is Jeff Bagwell considered a lock for the Hall?  Bags (.298/.408/.540) and Edgar (.312/.418/.515) were a pretty good match on rate stats and had careers that were almost direct matches (Edgar’s first full season was ‘90 and he played until 2004; Bagwell went from 91-05). 

Bagwell had about 150 more HR than Edgar did which I’m sure is pretty huge in HOF voting. He was considered to be a pretty good fielder (I believe) and even generated value as a basestealer.  Now I could be wrong, but just based on talking to people and reading “mainstream” opinions, I’m not sure at all that he’s a lock.  I feel like folks would still look at Edgar and talk about how a 1B with barely over 300 career HR can’t be in the HOF.

I just don’t know about Edgar.  I would think the lack of any defensive value would be huge.  Certainly one of the great hitters of his generation without a doubt.

Boggs was considered a no-brainer, which is why I selected him.  He’s not a cusp player (or considered a cusp player) like Perez and Sutter were.

At the very least, one should consider Edgar in the same ballpark as Boggs.

I’m as big a fan as Edgar as anyone, but I wouldn’t defend him like this.  You can’t just gloss over things like Wade’s defense.  And you note that Boggs played in Fenway, but you didn’t note that Edgar played in the Kingdome.

martinez is, arguably, one the two best right-handed hitters we’ve seen--martinez the other.
how does anyone hold that boggs played in fenway for a long time, and hit .369 there, against him?
he played there a long time, and hit .369 there. period.
and to the person desparately trying to equate 191 hr+ 228 outs to 419 singles: quit trying.
you’re working too hard, with lousy demonstrated statistical methods, to make an obivious point.
it detracts from martinez’s case, and casts all analysts in a bad light (poor suppositions; bad qualification of importance; overreaching of conclusions).
regards,
kevin warren

My park factors have the Kingdome as just about as neutral as you can get (these are for 1990-99):

1.02
1.01
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.02

I don’t know whether Bagwell is considered a no-brainer or not, but he should be.  Ditto for Boggs.  Perhaps it’s the fact that I favor a career value approach, but I don’t see how Boggs could possibly be left out of the HOF as currently constituted (justly that is, as the same can be said for Raines).  His last few years may have gotten him to 3000 hits, but he did not really add much to his value from a sabermetric perspective by hanging on.  For my money, only Schmidt and Matthews are clearly ahead of him at third base.

That being said, I can muster no real emotion about Edgar, Raines, or anyone else being left out.  The HOF is a joke as far as I’m concerned.  I don’t think it can truly serve as an honor for a great player.  “Hey, Tim Raines, you are now in an honored group that includes Tommy McCarthy, Harry Hooper, Kiki Cuyler, Ross Youngs, Heinie Manush, Edd Roush, and Lloyd Waner!”

For a truly great player, the HOF can only serve to insult them by slighting them in some way (like making them wait for several years).  The only players it can truly honor would be guys like Kenny Lofton who would by no means be the worst in the Hall, but probably don’t really belong either.

That is not to say that players aren’t honored by the HOF or that they don’t say they are.  I just think that if they knew how they truly compared to some of the previous inductees, their attitude might be a little less reverential.

I have gotten the impression from my experience in talking to the average fan that they view the Hall as consisting of the Mantles, Ruths, Cobbs, and Alexanders and really have no idea of how many players are in there that they’ve never heard of, or that many of the players are Kenny Loftons and Omar Vizquels rather than Rickey Hendersons and Alex Rodriguezes.

After 4000 PA, Edgar:
at home: .311 .423 .517
on road: .312 .412 .514

After 3500 PA, Helton:
at home: .338 .439 .613
on road: .305 .401 .475

After 5000 PA, Boggs:
at home: .354 .443 .491
on road: .302 .387 .395

Certainly, if you take advantage of a particular park more than your peers, that’s a good thing.  But, you are not going to pretend that you won’t make some adjustment.  You need to, at the least, compare that player to what some peer would do in the same context.  You are not going to compare someone at Coors to someone at the Astrodome, without some consideration.

If Fred Lynn remained in Fenway, he might have been a HOF.  Doesn’t it seem a bit strange to say that someone may or may not be a HOF depending on the identity of his home park?

Edgar clearly belongs in the HOF, but just as clearly he’s not going. That’s been known for quite some time.

Much as I love him, I believe the arguments for Santo, Grich, Raines, Trammell and maybe even Whitaker are easier and more urgent to address.

The worst one is probably for Dwight Evans.

Hitting-wise, he is pretty close to Rice, both at a career level, and peak level (Rice, 77-83, Evans 81-87).  They both share the same park bias.

And Evans gets a much bigger fielding boost.  And yet, Rice was better in his 20s, and Evans better in his 30s, and that’s the difference.

Patriot, I think the HOF arguments are more interesting than your comment would suggest if you think of them as debates about whether a player is worthy of election by the writers, who on the whole have done a very good job of selecting the top 100 or so players of all time (a few mistakes, but not many).  It’s the veterans committee that’s made most of the errors you cite, and when we talk about a guy like Edgar, we’re really talking about whether he is comparable to, and thus worthy of inclusion with, the other 100+ guys that the writers have voted in over the years, essentially the 100 or so top players in modern baseball history.  That seems to me an interesting question, entirely worthy of discussion.

I in no way intended to suggest that any question was not worthy of discussion, only that it does not interest me and I don’t understand why any truly great player would feel honored by being elected.

The schism between the standards for the writers and the VC is just another reason why I think the HOF is the mess that it is.  When you have two different groups with different standards considering the same set of players, and each with a mandate to elect somebody at least occasionally, you inevitably wind up with the standards being dragged down.

If there is a player, let’s call him Alan Trammell, who is rightly or wrongly not going to be elected by the writers, but has an excellent chance of being selected by the VC, what is the point of making him wait 25 years instead of 5?  What purpose does this serve, other then to have a higher percentage of dead honorees? 

The only purpose to it that I can see is to prevent the VC from dropping down to Kenny Lofton in 2030 because Jim Edmonds is already in.  In other words, because the system is a mess. 

That’s why, personally, I am much more interested in the issue of straight-up rankings of players (i.e. who is your personal top 100? or top 10 shortstops, etc.) or in alternative HOF projects like the Hall of Merit at BTF.  Debating who should be voted in now and who will end up with a plaque on the same wall but will have to wait another 20 years really doesn’t float my boat.

That’s a great point.  The entire 15yr waiting thing is a joke.  It’s almost as if you are given one month to write a one-page composition in school.  What are you going to do?  Wait until the night before.  The obvious ones go in right away, then you string the rest of whatever timespace you have.

If the players were given just 5 years of consideration, then after that it goes to some VC for a one-time consideration, that should be the end of it.  The writers would’ve made a choice on Rice and Perez and Gossage and Blyleven alot sooner.

Um, Edgar was hitting in the high-offense 1990s; Boggs in the low-offense 1980s.  And Boggs was a plus 3B, while Edgar didn’t play the field at all.  Those are two mighty relevant details to gloss over…

Boggs is one of the top 3-4 players alltime at his position.  Edgar is right on the borderline.

Yeah, I agree that the defensive-value thing got glossed over (unless the point was that HoF voters don’t care about that anywhere so it’s irrelevant).

DH vs. 3B is 15 runs per year—how many more singles would Edgar need to catch Boggs there?  (15 runs / .8 runs per single-out swap * 15 seasons) And I know Boggs was a pretty damn good 3B later in his career (how was he early?), so that’s more singles for Edgar to hypothetically accumulate in his upcoming at-bats.

Um, Edgar was hitting in the high-offense 1990s; Boggs in the low-offense 1980s. 

Edgar was born Jan 2, 1963 and Boggs was born June 15, 1958.  They look like contemporaries to me.  Their careers overlapped from 1990-1999.  Boggs got 5369 PA in the 90s and Edgar got 5587 PA.  Hard to get any closer than that!

Boggs got more PA prior to 1990 (in Fenway), and Edgar got more after 1999.  So, they both got the 1990s benefit.

Edgar’s “AIR” number is 106.  Boggs “AIR” number is 104. 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/bat_glossary.shtml#AIR

AIR - I call this AIR because it is how pumped up a player’s stats are by the park and leagues they played in. I looked at the median league OBP and SLG from 1901 to the present and it historically is around .335 for league OBP and .400 for league slugging. Not quite, but those are the closest round numbers. Next I take, 100*((park-adjusted Lg OBP/ .335) + (park-adjusted Lg SLG /.400) - 1) to come up with the player’s AIR factor. 100 means they hit in historically average settings. Over 100 means higher offensive environment than usual. Under 100 means lower offensive environment than usual.

Long-story short: when you look at the overall league setting AND the park setting, Edgar and Wade’s offensive numbers, unadjusted, are fairly well comparable.

And Boggs was a plus 3B, while Edgar didn’t play the field at all.  Those are two mighty relevant details to gloss over…

Actually, Edgar became a full-time DH at age 32.  In this respect, he compares better to Molitor (full-time DH at age 34), or maybe Jim Thome.

Edgar doesn’t get considered as being a 3B because he was playing 3B in the minors at an age when the star players were already in the majors.

This is my entire point here: that the perception of Edgar is changed because of his late-start.  As I said at BTF, I’m in the “demonstrably better” camp, not in the “overall value in MLB” camp.  You just need 6 years of Koufax to know he’s great, and the rest of his career is “filler” that does nothing at all to touch his greatness.  The same for Edgar.  You need say 12 (or whatever) years to know he’s great.  He could have played 3 extra years of horrible hitting and passable fielding at 3B, and his legacy would not be changed, because he demonstrated already that he’s a HOF player, as many good players better than him as worse than him.  All those 3 years of playing bad would do is “add” to his counting legacy numbers, and give him 7 years of being considered a 3B instead of 4.

DH vs. 3B is 15 runs per year—how many more singles would Edgar need to catch Boggs there?  (15 runs / .8 runs per single-out swap * 15 seasons)

More like 10 seasons.  Boggs played 1652 more games at 3B than Edgar, which is 10.2 162-game seasons.  There is a 1.5 win gap between 3B and DH, so you can add say 15 wins to Boggs, plus say another 5 for his plus fielding.  That’s 20 wins to add.

However, as noted, Edgar gets no benefit at all, here, for his fielding talent level in his 20s.  That he didn’t get to demonstrate it in the MLB is the entire point that I’m trying to make here.

I am not talking about “value in MLB”.  I’m talking about “demonstrated talent level”.

That is: what kind of TRUE TALENT pitcher would be able to put up an OBSERVATION of 156 ERA+ between the ages of 25 and 30, given 1633 innings?  (That’s Koufax.) I’d also add in his post-season of course.

That’s, what, 10 standard deviations from the league mean, or say 20 standard deviations from replacement level?  What kind of 20-year career would someone need to put up to be 10 SD from the league mean, or 20 SD from the replacement level?

Whatever that line is, that’s Koufax’s equivalent line.  That’s the “filler”.  Pedro’s career is defined by 1997-2003.  Everything else is filler.  It really means nothing at all what he may have done outside of those years, because what Pedro did in those years (118-36, ERA+ of 213 in 1408 innings) defines his greatness.  On those years alone, his HOF credentials have been marked.

This is the perspective I am presenting here.  I understand the standard perspective that others are trying to show.  But, that’s their bias being presented.  I’m saying, set aside your bias.  Talk about what I’m presenting here.

“I like Obama because McCain...” Don’t tell me you prefer your approach because my approach… If the issue is Obama, talk about Obama.  If the issue is that I’m talking about demonstrated performance that infers true talent, then talk about that.

(All non-factual numbers are for illustration purposes only.)

Here’s the BTF thread:
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/discussion/the_book_blog_tango_edgar/

And my comments are reprinted here for posterity:

1. Would Eddie Murray and Wade Boggs have made the HOF had they been career DH?

2. Paul Molitor became a full-time DH at age 34. Edgar at age 32. As I noted, Edgar came up very late. He was 28 1/2 when he got his 1000th PA. I chose Wade because he also came up late, and even he pales in comparison to Edgar. Clearly, Edgar would not have been a DH between 23 and 28 seeing that he was a 3B a majority of the time. Molitor the Golden Boy managed to rack up fielding time in the majors far earlier.

So, I don’t like Walt’s point about the position because it ignores the point I’m making of his late start.

If you want to make the comparison Edgar v Molitor, that’d probably safer. This also removes the Fenway issue.

3. The main point is the idea of “compiling” meaningless stats, that you can be the worst hitter around, and still end up putting up stats equal to someone else.

Edgar has a bias, in that his career started so late. This is a similar issue to Koufax. Really, Koufax’s entire resume settles on 6 years and his post-season.

Other than the mandatory 10 year requirement, did Sandy Koufax’s 36-40 start to his career with a league average ERA really help his HOF cause? It was purely filler, a meaningless addition, that simply helps with all the counting stats. He could have started his career at age 24/25 and be considered the greatest LHP ever by a large group of people.

If you give Edgar an ever lesser benefit of the doubt, say someone who hits like Adam Everett and Edgar played his usual 3B, and pad those stats to his career, why should that help him? I’m saying, you should simply assume those things, in the same way making Koufax 36-40 or 0-0 would come out to the same thing.

That’s where I’m coming from. If you need a really bad performance to become equal to someone else, shouldn’t you already be considered equal?

***

This is thinly-veiled as replacement level by the way.

***

Please, no WARP. WARP is crap. Same with Win Shares. Make any other argument than that. Their replacement levels are biased against someone with low playing time, something that I’m trying to make the point with Edgar here.

***

Why would he think that? The question being asked is always: “How would player X do, if put in the exact same context as player Y”. Well, Edgar, player Y, is put at DH. If he was also playing at a pitcher’s park, you’d obviously have to account for that. If DH, as a rule, are biased against because it’s harder to DH, just as it’s easier to relieve, then you must account for that bias. You have to account for all contexts.

***

This is the point Walt. Even if you give him a crappy 3 years of hitting (as a DH even), he still comes out looking great. And, in terms of counting numbers, looking even “prettier”.

But, those 3 years of crappy hitting should do nothing to affect our view of him, just as Koufax’s pre-1961 years does nothing to us as to how great a pitcher he was.

It seems that people think that having a sub .300 OBP and a sub .350 SLG is actually something BETTER than not playing in MLB at all.

According to B-R.com, from the age of 27 onwards, since 1901, Edgar is 9th in Runs Created (Palmeiro 8th!). Boggs is 17th and Molitor 20th.

In Runs Participated In (R+RBI-HR), he’s 23rd, 1 ahead of Molitor.

In OPS+ (a stat I hate, but I quote because B-r shows it), since age 27, he’s a sliver ahead of Frank Thomas, Bagwell, McCovey, and Sheffield and just behind Thome.

That’s all based on 8000 PA (about the same career PA as Kirby Puckett).

People have this need for “counting stats” to make them feel better, and I say, fine, give him 3 crappy seasons. Crappy play isn’t supposed to make his case better, but that’s how some people perceive it.

And, realistically, if you are 9th all-time in RC from the age of 27 onwards, you would at least be an average hitter prior to age 27.

I fall in the camp of “demonstrated ability”, like Koufax. I don’t need padding of seasons.

***

“It’s shameful to compare Martinez as a offensive player to Koufax as a pitcher in terms of peak.”

I’m not comparing the two players. I’m comparing the framework, the thinking behind “demonstrably great” player. Koufax needed 6 years to do that, and everything else is padding. Edgar needed, what, say 12 years, and everything else is padding. He doesn’t need 3 more years of crappy hitting to bolster his case.

“You can’t just add 3 seasons worth of such miserable hitting because no player could keep a job as a full-time DH with such numbers for such a long time.”

That’s my point! That you can add 3 years of miserable hitting and BOLSTER his case (in some people’s minds). If you want to be realistic, and add say something reasonable, then it really really bolsters his case. I wanted to give him the least amount of benefit as possible, that it’s all an illusion in the counting stats.

***

I think we are on the same page, as I’m not disagreeing with you. Edgar has solid credentials on their own, and its only through the view of “counting stats” that he loses alot of lustre (DH or no DH).

In hindsight, I should have chosen Molitor, not Boggs, but, that’s what I get for writing a quick post. I wanted to focus on the late start and wanted someone who also started somewhat late. I’m surprised that Boggs comes out as high as you have him though.

***

DA/56: you get the point exactly as I intended. Does Gooden’s single 24-4 season show more about how great he was than Sutton’s career? Does Sutton’s career show more than Koufax’s 6 years?

Statistically, it’s all about how many standard deviations that performance is from some baseline (say average or replacement level). A single game no-hitter for example is 3 standard deviations from the mean. How about a 58-game scoreless inning streak?

At what point did (not does) Albert Pujols cement his position as a HOF (the 10-yr rule notwithstanding)? How about Ted Williams? Would Edgar have been DH in the NL? Would Ted have been DH if DH were around?

That’s why I keep going back to “demonstrated ability inferring true talent” as way to resolve any of these issues (or Jackie or the war years, etc), and that this is really the way we remember the players (how do you remember Orel Hershiser, and Gooden and Guidry?).

You look at the breadth of performance that most likely shows them to be far better than some common comparison point.

If the filler years do nothing to enhance that, then remove them.

Number of HOF, by birth decade, (n=228 players), starting in 1890:
1890s: 30 (11 BBWAA)
1900s: 41 (14 BBWAA)
1910s: 19 ( 8 BBWAA)
1920s: 17 (11 BBWAA)
1930s: 24 (20 BBWAA)
1940s: 16 (all BBWAA)
1950s: 12 (and counting)

It would seem to me that each decade, from hereonin anyway, should have about 2 players voted in per year by the BBWAA, with possibly another 0.5 players for Veteran’s consideration.  So, I would think that we should have around 25-30 players in the HOF for players born in the 11 years between 1958-1968 (Edgar was born in the middle of that).

Of the 55 players in the HOF born since 1930, 18 are pitchers, which is roughly one-third.  So, we should expect somewhere around 17-20 nonpitchers among the players born within 5 years of Edgar.

Here are your choices:

Bonds, Rickey, Ripken, Sheffield, Frank Thomas, Gwynn, Boggs, Raines, Piazza

That’s 9.

Biggio, Alomar, Larkin, Sandberg, Kent, Trammell,
Bagwell, Palmeiro, McGwire, McGriff

That’s 10 more.

And here’s more guys:
Will Clark, Sosa, Larry Walker, Luis Gonzalez, Albert Belle, Puckett, Mattingly, Bernie, Baines, Steve Finley, Chili Davis, Galaragga, Moises Alou, Kenny Lofton, Vizquel, Olerud, Will Clark

Go.

***

We should expect 8 to 10 pitchers born between 1958-1968.  We have:

Clemens, Maddux, RJ
Three easy ones.

Glavine, Smoltz, Mussina, Brown, Schilling
Another 5.

The others:
Finley, Hershiser, David Wells, Moyer, Key, Saberhagen, Cone, Appier, Gooden

Relievers: Hoffman
Others: Wetteland, Franco, Myers

So, I think for pitchers, it’s fairly straightforward, as it looks like we have 9 pitchers (the 8 plus Hoffman).

For nonplayers, Edgar easily holds his own with the third-group, and looks to be in the mix with Palmeiro, McGwire, McGriff.

I think you can make strong cases for some of the players in the third group, such that perhaps we should expect even more players than usual for the HOF among Edgar’s peers.

I’ve just glossed over this thread, as well as the one on BTF, but I have never agreed with the ‘demonstrated greatness’ viewpoint of Tango. I think the HOF is (should be), at the endpoint of a career, about production rather than some statistical estimate of ‘great ability’ over some time period.

That doesn’t mean that there can’t be any mitigating circumstances, but the focus should still be on production rather than talent.

These are the guys on Tango’s list that I think are better HOF candidates than Martinez:

Bonds, Rickey, Ripken, Sheffield, Frank Thomas, Gwynn, Boggs, Raines, Piazza, Biggio, Alomar, Larkin, Sandberg, Kent, Trammell, Bagwell, Palmeiro, McGwire, Sosa, Walker.

Walker is probably the only one on that list that I don’t consider a HOFer, and it’s questionable.

For pitchers, I’d have Clemens, Maddux, RJ, Glavine, Smoltz as clear inductees, with Schilling, Brown, and Mussina as questionable. Of the three “questionables,” I would put Schilling in (postseason and strikeouts give him the edge), not Brown (but I could be convinced), and not Mussina (although another season or so of what he’s doing now and he passes Brown in my book. which I think is likely).

That puts me around 27 HOFers born between 1958-1968. It looks like my estimate of 15-20 per decade is a little low, but I think this happens to be an uncharacteristically strong 11 year period and that it will taper off a little bit.

Modern-day relievers really are a new position so they don’t count for the comparison… those that get in (and that’s a whole separate discussion) are really a separate category. I’m not sure any modern relievers merit HOF induction but if they do Hoffman certainly deserves it.

Where I tend to disagree with the Edgar supporters is comparing him to guys like Palmeiro, McGwire, Sosa, and Walker. I think they are all clearly better candidates. McGwire is a much better hitter. Sosa and Palmeiro have more career value (and not padded with crap seasons) and more defensive value (Palmeiro much more), and both have more value on the bases (Sosa much more). Walker is not as good a hitter as Martinez, but he’s close, and he’s a great defensive player with excellent speed.

I’ve tried to stay out of this, since I’m a bit biased on the topic, but Rafael Palmiero has “more career value” than Edgar?

WPA/LI: Palmeiro, 43.69 - Edgar, 45.93
BtWins: Palmiero, 46.1 - Edgar, 52.1

Even if you give Palmeiro a generous defensive bonus, at best, you close the offensive gap, but it’s hard to make any real case that Palmeiro is seriously a better candidate.

Also, steroids.

I am not considering steroids at all for the purpose of this discussion. 

Palmeiro, RC: 2040
Martinez, RC: 1631

Palmeiro has more of basically every offensive category: hits, runs, HR, RBI, doubles, walks.  In career value, the two aren’t even close offensively.

Add in GG defense and a career nearly 50% longer, and it’s no question in my book.  You have to basically ignore a third of Palmeiro’s career or give Martinez credit for another 3-4 seasons to get them to be similar in career value. 

I concede that Martinez has a better peak.  That isn’t the end-all for me.

Dave,

You really think the defensive, positional, and 3500 PA difference doesn’t put Palmeiro ahead (ignoring, for the moment, steroids)?

When faced with a choice between runs created or linear weights, I’m going with Palmer.  Even with the PA difference, Edgar’s substantially better performance gave him more career offensive value.

How big of a defensive adjustment do you make for a guy who played 1B against a guy who moved to DH from 3B in his 30s? Some, and maybe enough to cut deeply into the offensive advantage Edgar clearly has, but enough to make him a better candidate? I don’t think so. 

And I really don’t think you can justify a big enough defensive adjustment to make it an open-and-shut case for Palmeiro.

I have Edgar and Raffy pretty close in value, Raffy with a slight edge 66 to 64.  In this case I don’t think the career length is a huge advantage.

Offensively, Raffy is Edgar + about 6 seasons of slightly below average hitting, -1 wins per year.  A first baseman at -1 wins per year is not adding value above replacement.

Defensively I have Raffy as good but not in the Keith Hernandez/John Olerud range.  He’s +28 runs on his career, including starting DP’s.

Re: my “demonstrably more ability inferring talent”.

I talked about this last year.  Wayne Gretzky was MVP in his first 8 years in the NHL (starting at age 18).  At which point did he cement his HOF status?  He could have been a league average player after that point, and he’s still in easy right? 

Bobby Orr was the Norris Trophy for best defensemen from his 2nd year through to his 9th (and last) year.  His career was over, much like Koufax, but at age 26 (!).  After that age, he played the equivalent of half a season.

Gordie Howe played until he was over 50.

Today, when you talk about the 3 greatest players of all-time, it starts and ends with those 3 (though Mario Lemieux sometimes finds his way in there).

And there’s not a single hockey fan that has any problem at all with that.  No one talks about career or peak or whatever. 

They talk about it they way I describe it, in terms of demonstrating their true talent in actual performance.

Isn’t Jim Brown in the NFL similarly regarded?

The same should apply in MLB.  After how many years did Ted Williams cement his position as one of the 10 best hitters of all time?  At which point would one say he was top 5?  Top 2?

And how about Albert Pujols?  Isn’t he already an easy HOF pick if his career ended like Bobby Orr or Koufax?

Koufax is considered by many to be the greatest LHP of all time, and that is strictly based on 6 years of performance.

So, I don’t go for this strict wins above replacement or wins above average or wins created or whathaveyou.  Certainly they provide the initial feed into the system, but I see it as going beyond that, closer to the subjective arguments we have when we talk about the greatest ever.

I don’t get David’s (Cameron--sheesh, there’s three of them) casting of the question as zero baseline (RC) v. average baseline (Batting Runs).  It doesn’t have to be either/or--there is a middle ground (comparing to some other baseline, like replacement level).

I agree with Tango that there is a subjective argument to be had.  However, to me, “the greatest” is the one who contributes the most value to his teams.  I don’t draw a distinction--that is what I subjectively think of when I hear the question of “greatest” bandied about. 

I have no problem with others having a different standard, but I don’t recognize an inherent dichotomy between the greatness question and the value question.

Also, I don’t think Jim Brown is the best example, as at the time of his retirement he was the NFL’s all-time leading rusher.  He did quit on top of his game, but only after he had established a great argument for having the most career value (at least at the time).

I would use Gayle Sayers as the football example--just 4,956 yards rushing, but still regarded as one of the great peak performers and like Koufax, went into the Hall of Fame in short order.

If Jim Brown was an easy pick after 10 (or whatever) seasons he played, at what point would he have been borderline?  How about Jordan? 

It’s easier in tennis and golf, where majors won have alot more impact.  Borg has 5 straight Wimbledons and that cemented his place in the top 10 today.  Is there anyone who thinks “If Borg stuck around and was an average tennis player for 5 more years, he’d really be even more highly regarded”

Really?  Again, does anyone really think like this, that average or slightly above average production helps in cementing your legacy as one of the greats?

For Edgar to have ended with the same counting stats as Palmeiro, he’d have had to rack up 3,259 more at-bats and hit .237/.249/.515. 

To echo Tango’s sentiments and Rally’s numbers, the Palmeiro supporters would really be more impressed with Edgar if he’d have finished his career with 5 bad seasons? Really? Edgar was five years with a .250 on base percentage away from Cooperstown?

No, of course not.  And this is why I made the linear weights versus runs created note earlier.  .237/.249/.515 for 3,259 at-bats will garner a lot of Runs Created, but it’s all still basically worthless. 

Or, to use a single season example, let’s say a hitter (we’ll call him Ichiro) goes 200 for 400 from April through July, and then gets hurt and misses all of August and September.  He finishes the year with a .500 batting average, but not enough at-bats to qualify for the batting title. 

The second highest BA of the season belongs to a guy we’ll call Howie Kendrick with a .332 mark on 199 for 600 totals. 

Who would you give the batting title to? Kendrick, because he accumulated 200 more at-bats, or Ichiro, because he would have finished with a higher BA even had he gone 0 for his next 200?

I do not go along with the comparisons to individual sports.  In an individual sport, you have to be brilliant at your peak in order to be the champion, as you must defeat all of the other individuals.  The average PGA golfer never wins a major and would have to play for, what, a century or so before they would be expected to win one.

Thus, by just winning a few major championships, Tiger or Borg or whoever has already achieved the pinnacle.  If it was only a matter of Sandy Koufax competing against Bob Gibson and Juan Marichal, then I would consider him much more highly.  But Koufax was just a member of the Dodgers, competing against the Cardinals and the Giants, and thus I don’t shift my focus from overall win contribution.  Winning the Cy Young is not in my eyes equivalent to winning the Masters or winning Wimbledon.  (I completely accept the “pennants added” argument, but that doesn’t really do much to bridge the gap between Tango’s view of Koufax and mine).

David C’s batting title scenario is not particularly helpful, because obviously 200 hits and 200 outs is more valuable than 199 hits and 401 outs.  Ichiro’s hits above replacement would be much, much higher than Kendrick’s.  If that type of scenario was in play for Edgar/Palmeiro, Edgar would have the same number of Runs Created with many less outs, which is not the case.

For Edgar to have ended with the same counting stats as Palmeiro, he’d have had to rack up 3,259 more at-bats and hit .237/.249/.515.

In other words, manage to play 5 more seasons with a below-replacement level OBP, with no defensive value.  It’s a very silly hypothetical because a player couldn’t possibly accumulate that much playing time under such conditions.

So, I don’t go for this strict wins above replacement or wins above average or wins created or whathaveyou.  Certainly they provide the initial feed into the system, but I see it as going beyond that, closer to the subjective arguments we have when we talk about the greatest ever.

I can see this.  The subjective argument is that Martinez had a relatively short career, that he missed a significant amount of games, that he had an impressive offensive peak but not a legendary one, that he never won an MVP and was only reasonably close to winning one twice, that he has unimpressive HR production for his position, and that he offered practically nothing defensively or on the bases.

We can nitpick over the value of his ~500 games as a 3B or whether he had comparable value to a poor defensive OF/1B defensively, but his legacy is hitting, and pretty much only hitting.  And at the end of the day, if you’re providing so little elsewhere, you’d better be in the discussion as the best or second-best or third-best hitter in the sport during your career.  You’d better have more black ink and grey ink than the average HOFer, because the average HOF is much better than you at pretty much everything else.

From 1990-2004 (his first full and last season), Edgar had 8392 PA.  Looking at all players with at least 7000 PA in that 15yr time span, Bonds and Frank Thomas are better, while Edgar is in a group of Thome, Sheff, Bagwell and Junior for the 3rd best hitter of his generation.

If you look at the entirety of their careers, for anyone born within 10 years of Edgar, include Manny in that list.  Maybe Giambi and Chipper too.

He’s in the discussion.

Thome may be his best comp, since they both played around the same number of games at 3B and are both in the vying for 3rd best hitter of their generation.

To get Edgar to Boggs hitting line, just add Jose Vidro.  To get to Palmeiro’s line, add Richie Sexson.  Sorry David.

It’s a very silly hypothetical because a player couldn’t possibly accumulate that much playing time under such conditions.

Exactly.  That’s why arguing that Palmeiro had superior offensive value in his career is stupid.

Who would you give the batting title to? Kendrick, because he accumulated 200 more at-bats, or Ichiro, because he would have finished with a higher BA even had he gone 0 for his next 200?

Ichiro. Bill Madlock and Tony Gwynn both won batting titles that way. We can argue over whether or not that’s the right way to do it, but those are actually what the rules are.

Let me give you some hard numbers to consider which I have put in its own thread:
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/observed_performance_inferring_true_talent_opitt/

David’s example would still hold if Ichiro only had 198 hits and Kendrick had 199 hits in 502 PA.  Technically Kendrick gets the batting title, but in reality, Ichiro was the one who demonstrated that he deserves it more.

Agreed, but David’s example is not in any meaningful way an analogy for the Edgar/Palmeiro debate.  The career value advocates (at least most of us) are not just saying that more runs (or hits to tie it to the Ichiro/Kendrick example) = more value, we’re saying that more hits above replacement = more value.

If a replacement level hitter has a .230 BA, then Ichiro is (198/400-.230)*400 = +106 hits above replacement and Kendrick is +84.  The career value above replacement advocates would fully agree that Ichiro was more valuable, MLB rules on who will get the batting title notwithstanding.

In order for Ichiro to hit .500 and be +84, he would have to be around 105-310, which is almost 100 fewer hits than in David’s example.

Big math error...should be 156-311 or so, and about 50 fewer hits.

150 hits in 300 AB, or 200 hits in 520 AB?

“Ichiro” would need to go .227 in 220 AB to match “Kendrick”.

In terms of OPITT, how much are each of these hitters from a .200 BA?  Ichiro is 13 SD and Kendrick is 10.5.

Assuming neither player has any walks (not unreasonable given it’s Ichiro and Howie) then Howie’s batting average would be compared to Ichiro’s hits divided by 502 (minimum PA needed).

Ichiro would technically win the title as long as he had at least 167 hits in those 400 at bats.

If you truly believe that player value is defined by exceeding replacement level, then 150 hits in 300 at bats is roughly equivalent in value to 200 hits in 520 at bats.  (assuming of course that the replacement batter hits .230)

I have no problem with people wanting to use the OPITT and other similar approaches if that’s what floats their boat.  But if you come at it from the value perspective, you either have to accept that 150-300 = 200-520, or reject the use of “replacement” level as commonly defined.

I am open to, but not convinced by, alternative ways of defining value, particularly on the career level (like the Wood/Silver/Tango constructs with an increasing baseline over time).  Even if I shied away from the use of “replacement level” in all circumstances, I would stil stick with a value approach to the question of who is worthy of HOF induction.

You have to accept then that having a career like Ted Williams or Bobby Orr after 6 seasons simply won’t give them enough WAR to put them over the line.

If a borderline candidate is around 60-70 WAR, and if Ted gets a 10 WAR season (unanimous MVP basically) for 6 or 7 straight seasons, that he is basically a borderline candidate.

Same deal for Pedro 1997-2003.

If the people who support the WAR approach accept the implication here, then fine.  But, I want to see the WAR supporters acknowledge this fact, that Ted after 6 or 7 years would have been debatable for the hall and that Pedro 1997-2003 would also be on the threshhold.

But, I want to see the WAR supporters acknowledge this fact, that Ted after 6 or 7 years would have been debatable for the hall and that Pedro 1997-2003 would also be on the threshhold.

You got it.  The production you’re talking about probably is pretty close to the minimum total production where I would start considering inducting a guy with a 6-7 year career.

A short career is a mark against a player in HOF qualification.  An especially short career is a serious mark.  And 3-4 years of replacement-level ability adds nothing to either player’s case (in my personal HOF, as opposed to the real HOF, where it’s the difference between even being eligible for induction).

For a current example, hit by a truck tomorrow, Pujols is not a HOFer.

I fully accept the implications that Tango explains in #44. 

If I had dictatorially power over the Hall, Koufax’ plaque would come down (unless someone could make a really good case that his career pennant value was sufficient, and I have yet to see it).

If Pujols’ career lets him amass another 6,094 at-bats, and he hits .251/.291/.378 over that lifetime, he’ll finish with 3,000 hits, 500 doubles, 500 home runs, and 1,000 walks.  His final numbers would be very similar to Rafael Palmeiro’s. 

You really want to argue that Palmeiro is a hall of famer and Pujols is not, when the difference between them is 10 years of horrible baseball? You can really look yourself in the mirror and say “Pujols isn’t a hall of famer right now, but if he’s the worst player in the game for the next decade, he’s in”?

I doubt it.

I’m definitely interested in continuing this discussion but I’m basically posting the same stuff in two places.  Maybe we could consolidate in the BTF thread (simply because there are more participants there)?

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/discussion/67269/

By the way, this is a great discussion that you’ve started, Tango, and I want to credit both you and the participants in both threads, for both the quality and civility of their posts.

I’ve been kicking this around in my head for a while, and I’m starting to believe that a standard that could be useful would be career value over average. What I mean is:

* In a full season, an average player is worth 2-2.5 WAR.
* Use a 10-year career (or so) as your baseline.
* 2 * 10 = 20 wins

Then, take a player’s career WAR minus 20 (or 25, or so on) and that’s his career value above an average starter. It provides a balance of valuing players with a high peak and shorter overall career, and valuing players with a lower peak but a longer career.

You really want to argue that Palmeiro is a hall of famer and Pujols is not, when the difference between them is 10 years of horrible baseball? You can really look yourself in the mirror and say “Pujols isn’t a hall of famer right now, but if he’s the worst player in the game for the next decade, he’s in”?

We seem to be talking past each other.  I don’t know a better way to explain that 6000+ PA of .251/.291/.378 by itself wouldn’t help than to simply say that.

If Pujols could somehow accumulate another 6000 PA while putting up replacement level offense, the only way he’d possibly be keeping his job is if he was bringing something else very significant to the table.  That would be something I’d have to consider in any HOF discussion regarding a player.

The shape of a player’s career matters to me.  If the 6000 PA you suggest are simply tacked on the end, they provide practically no value, although I will never have to worry about that situation, because it won’t ever happen.  If the PA are spread throughout a player’s career, they will dilute the player’s peak to some degree and that will hurt his HOF argument.

And that’s what happened with Palmeiro.  His peak is poor for a HOF player.  With a career of average length for a HOF player, he wouldn’t be in.  With no defensive value, he wouldn’t be in.  Palmeiro has one of the weaker peaks I would consider for HOF candidacy.

That’s the thing.  Palmeiro is 15th in the MLB history in PA.  That’s an exceptionally long career.  That has value.  He’s not a guy that hung around putting up an extra 1500 PA of replacement level play to squeak onto the leaderboards either… while his final two seasons weren’t incredible, they were above replacement level. 

In brief summation, Pujols + 6000 replacement level PA tacked onto the end != Palmeiro.  Pujols with 6000 replacement level PA scattered throughout his career is still going to have a less exceptional career length than Palmeiro and a marginally better peak.  That’s going to make them very close in HOF-worthiness.

Cros, the three issues with BTF threads are:

1. After a while they die, and after a longer while, commenting is closed off.

2. They are impossible to search.

3. Hijacks.  Though thankfully, that didn’t happen there.

That said, feel free to post there or here or in duplicate or singleton, and I’ll keep monitoring both threads.

It seems to me like you’re compartmentalizing HOF standards into binary answers with little to no differentiation beyond the yes/no answer.  If I’m wrong, help me out, but how is your process not like this?

Does a player have a HOF peak - Yes/No?
Does a player have a HOF length - Yes/No?
Are there externalities to consider - Yes/No?

This serves to create a neat little box that we can shove players into and determine if they fit or not, but it does nothing to help us answer the question of the relative value of extraordinary peaks or lengths. 

I realize that you advocate for a tiny hall of fame, which is your right, but I’m having a hard time understanding why you have such a narrow definition of the exact specifics of what a hall of fame career has to look like.  Careers come in all shapes and sizes, and tossing out every single shape that doesn’t look like a bell curve seems pretty arbitrary and odd to me.

Colin, how is that different from just comparing player’s to average instead of replacement?  The higher the baseline, the more you shift the importance of career length to career peak.

I’ve thrown around the idea in the past of rewarding WAR in a non-linear fashion.  For example, HOFWAR = WAR^2 for each season.  In any season, the next win of production is worth a more than the one before it, eventually a lot more.

Lemme give an example. Let’s say you have a player producing an average of 4 WAR per season for eight seasons, for a total of 32 WAR. That’d be 20 Career Wins Above Average. Then you have another player who plays 16 years at an average of 2 WAR. Their CWAA would both be 12.

If you used WAA in every season, though, you wouldn’t get that result - the second player would have several below average - but above replacement - seasons tacked on the end of his career.

I don’t know if you end up anywhere different than using career WAR in the abstract, but it makes more sense to me to be able to explain “This is how many wins this player contributed above and beyond the average career.”

I’m just going to repeat my posts from BTF for posterity.  If you’ve kept up there, ignore this particular post.

***

“but it certainly shouldn’t work against a player.”

Who said it would? I don’t know that it does. And it might not, depending on your comparison point. If you answer the question: “what is the chance that this performance was put up by a league average pitcher or worse”, and if you add in league-average seasons, I think this probably helps him. If you answer the question: “what is the chance that this performance was put up by a .550 or worse pitcher”, then the league-average seasons likely won’t help him.

If you use a replacement-level as your baseline in the question, then it would definitely help someone like Sutton.

Look at Posnanski’s blog. He asked for the greatest pitcher alive, and in the middle of the top 4 (Pedro, Maddux, Clemens) you find Koufax.

And the only process, I think that can fairly put all the pitchers in the discussion like this is to consider both peak and breadth. And what I’m offering here is one way to do that. Not as a hodge-podge way of combining it, but to answer a specific question you come up with and give you the exact method to answer that question yourself.

***

Hawk: Extending the Pujols question, at what point did Wayne Gretzky and Bobby Orr cement their position as not only HOFers, but as 2 of the 4 greatest players of all time?

Pujols has about 5000 career PA. If you find the best 5000 stretch of PA for every player who has ever played (at any point in their careers), how many players are better than Pujols? And of those players, are all of them basically “no-brainers”. Are the guys just below him also no-brainers? If you do something that can only be accomplished by someone of super great talent, then guess what that makes Pujols.

Dan: re Giambi. His 3 years, while great, does not necessarily imply a stretch of performance that could only have been done by a HOF-type player. It might qualify him, I don’t know. I’d have to look. But, this is the question we are trying to answer. His 3 years could be similar to say Kevin Mitchell or Kal Daniels or lots of other players. If that’s the case, then it won’t really meet the definition, any more than someone pitching a perfect game.

Does throwing 58 scoreless innings qualify? I don’t know. How much talent do you need to do that? Could it be possible that a good pitcher with a few lucky breaks do that? How about a 39-game hitting streak? Benito Santiago did that, right?

***

Anyway, go back to my hockey question and answer that. Hint: Bobby Orr is currently considered one of the 3 greatest hockey players of all time, and his career was over by the age of 26.... just 9 seasons. Does that mean after 8 seasons he’d be considered top 5? After 7 seasons top 10? After 6 seasons top 30?

See where I’m going here? What level of talent would produce a career like Bobby Orr?

***

“that means you must have been greater than a Paul Molitor or a Don Sutton, who was never able to reach that level at any point”

Not quite. Sutton doesn’t have to have 6 years like Koufax. It’s possible that Sutton’s 12 best years are more significant than Koufax’s 6 best years. I don’t know.

It’s possible that Nicklas Lidstrom’s 1400 games are more significant than Bobby Orr’s 700 games.

It is a peak discussion, but a “floating” peak.

While Giambi’s 3 straight great years may be very high, it is possible that it simply doesn’t pass the significance test.

We want to know how many standard deviations from the baseline level he is. And it’s possible that even 3 super great season won’t be able to pass enough standard deviations to satisfy that. Unless probably seasons by Pedro or Ruth.

***

Btw, of course average seasons have value. To a team, to fans, to everyone. But, do they necessarily have value to determining the best players of all time? Does Pete Rose’s career in the 1980s really bolster his case (peripheral issues notwithstanding)? Or choose whoever you want. Clearly they have value in winning games. But they do nothing to establish what we already knew of his talent level.

Is there any player that you think “man, he’s borderline, but if he can just be an average player for 3 more years, then he’s a hall of famer!” Does that make much sense? But, this is the argument people are trying to make.

From 1997-2003, Pedro was 118-36. Does he really need to go 10 seasons of 14-14 for you to say “yup, because of those seasons, he brought his case up to Jim Palmer, Bob Gibson, Juan Marichal levels”.

Does anyone believe that? Pedro is a HOF based only on 1997-2003. Everything else is filler. He doesn’t need those seasons to be equal to the other 3 guys. He’s already demonstrated a talent level better than those 3 guys based on those 7 seasons alone.

***

Hawk: I don’t look for “reason” with the 10yr rule. Bobby Orr played 9 full seasons, then a couple of 10 game seasons here and 20 game season there. Imagine keeping, at the time, the greatest hockey player ever out of the HOF on a technicality like that. Similar if Ted Williams retired after 9 seasons. Didn’t Jim Brown only play 10 seasons?

As for 2 seasons or 3 seasons or 5 seasons being enough: like I said, whatever is significant. What kind of talent level would be required to produce what Gooden produced in his first 5 years (aside: probably not the best example, as his ERA+, outside of that 24-4 season is nothing terribly exciting). Maybe the best example of the short career is Maddux from 1994-1995. That is, would it be enough of a statistical significance test if Maddux came into the league in 1994, pitched those 2 seasons, and was done for his career? That performance would probably be say 10 standard deviations from the mean. From that standpoint, he would almost certainly qualify in my book. It’s a level of actual performance that could only have been achieved by someone of the talent level of Gibson, Seaver, Clemens, etc. Terry Mulholland and Oil Can Boyd would not have put up 2 years like that. Well, it’s “possible”, at the probability of whatever 10 standard deviations implies. Then again, Bob Gibson’s career in its entirety might also be 10 standard deviations away from a .500 pitcher. This is what I’m trying to say.

If Lebron had played one year in college, and you had all these other typically good players who played 4 years, Lebron would be considered the greatest player ever in that college, even if you had a “2 year min rule”, because the performance line he would have put up was so far out that only someone with a very high talent could have put up those numbers.

***

“Okay, I see what you’re saying, but the Hall as constituted asks us not only to evaluate whether or not a HoF performance is demonstrated, but that it is maintained.”

It should go without saying that we are applying our personal definitions here, and not whatever the suits are writing. That is, if the HOF didn’t exist, what would we do?

As for career length in hockey, I’d say it’s fairly close to baseball. Number 50 in career games played in the NHL is 1282 games, and with the league being 70-82 games for the majority of the new age, that implies around 16 or 17 seasons. Number 50 in MLB is 2499 games, and with 154-162 games being a season, that makes it around 16 seasons. Not necessarily the best way to do it, but I kinda expected the career lengths to be similar.

So, what do you do with Bobby Orr, or a Ted Williams that say may have either been killed in a war or out for injury after 9 years? After 7? 5?

***

“Does Dutch Leonard’s 1914 season make him a HoFer?”

Check out the link I provided. If you use the comparison point as a below-replacement level player, you will see that that single season is not enough standard deviations away to define greatness.

I provided several examples in that link, so check it out, and let me know what you think.

“If you favor peak, does a guy like Sutton make the HOF? How about Nolan Ryan?”

As noted, if you have a “floating peak” as I’m describing it, then both would likely qualify.

***

“If Barry Bonds came up from the minors, in his first season had his 2001 (or 2002, or 2003, or 2004) season, and then was tragically murdered by Kevin, would he be a HOFer in your formulation?”

Please read the link in post 120. It’s all there. Choose the scenario that makes the most sense to you, and you’ll get your answer.

***

David, I laid out scenarios so that you get to choose the one that makes the most sense. I gave different examples, how far a performance is from a .340 wOBA, .300 wOBA, .260 wOBA, .220 wOBA.

To me, it seems that the number of standard deviations from the .260 wOBA probably makes the most sense. That’s why I laid out those scenarios. I’m not giving you the right answer. I’m giving you the framework so you can end up with your own answer.

And I’ve never intended to imply “that you wish to disregard any season which isn’t a “great” season”. What I am always saying is that you look at the performance and infer what kind of talent level would produce that performance.

And, in the link I provided, I even give a scenario in which someone who is a league average player for 28 seasons (aged 18 to 45 let’s say) could qualify as being a borderline candidate, because he’d be far enough away from a specific baseline. Again, it all depends on which baseline you settle on, be it .340 or .220 or whatever floats your boat.

***

As I said in my blog, if you subscribe to the WAR theory, such that a 60-70 WAR player is borderline, then do you accept the implication that Pedro having a career solely based on 1997-2003 and Ted Williams having a career solely based on his first 6-7 years (or being unanimous MVP for his first 6 seasons), or Orr or Gretzky or Jordan having a career that only spans 6 or 7 years will make them all borderline candidates?

I’m fine with whatever you say, as long as you realize the implication of your position.

***

The framework I’m providing is a way to combine peak and longevity in such a way as to not have the Koufax-exception, and without creating a hodgepodge way of mixing peak and longevity.

***

GGC: I don’t think you are comparing the right things. The .380 observed wOBA being 8 SD from the .340 wOBA after 16 seasons is correct. What we don’t know (or haven’t shown anyway) is what is the distribution of talent in the league. If the distribution of talent is fairly wide, then being 8 SD from the mean is no big shakes. If the entire population of MLB was all a true .335 to .345, then having a .380 career is enormous.

So, the 1.3% has nothing to do with what I’m saying.

***

“I’m having a flashback to a thread discussing MGL’s inability/unwillingness to communicate to non-statheads...”

I’m certainly willing. Am I able to? I thought I am. I already said I don’t know the answer. I’m not going to pretend that I do.

But, more important than my answer, which, really, is irrelevant and useless, is that I provided a framework to allow you to create your own answer. Isn’t that more important, or at least intriguing?

Perhaps your or David can word or rephrase your questions a bit differently so I can give you a better answer.

If you insist on an answer, then… 42.

***

“...yes, those years alone make him a borderline candidate.”

Fantastic. Thanks for asserting the implication.

Given that position, say someone who plays for 7 years and has a 60-70 WAR total and 60-70 is borderline, then in order for him to be pushed above that level, anything he does above replacement level, say 8 seasons of being a .450 pitcher will now make him HOF material.

Again, there’s nothing necessarily wrong with that. You’ve got your framework (WAR), you’ve got your position, and you are not making an “exception” that contradicts your framework.

Good…

***

“namely, do you really mean that if a player has a good enough single season (for whatever value of “good enough"), you’d call him a HOFer. And the second question: does it really not matter to you if, outside that great season, he did well or badly or not at all.”

Theoretically, it’s possible that one season a HOF makes. It hasn’t happened yet, not even close.

And correct, once someone has established his HOF creds, he can’t lose that cred.

“(I think it’s answering the wrong question—I do think the Hall is about value, not “talent.")"

To be clear, I’m specific in my definition of talent. It’s not just some guy who has the tools or whatever. But, the guy whose actual performance can only have been done by someone of a specific level of talent.

That said, that’s my question as to what makes a “good” HOF.

“You seem to be worried that I’m asking your answer because then I can say, “Well, so-and-so’s a HOFer (or not) because Tango says so.” But I’m asking the question because I’m trying to explore how far you take this “framework."”

I’m not worried. Since the framework is quite flexible, it allows one person to say his benchline is performance from .340 and another to say performance from .220, such that in one case, one Bonds season is enough, and in another case, it requires 5 Bonds seasons.

It’s a way of talking about peak and longevity without making it a hodgepodge solution.

Honestly, I thought that my explanation in the blog was quite clear, since I give multiple scenarios and the implications for each scenario. If you subscribe to the .260 scenario, then you know exactly how many PA and at what performance level constitutes borderline.

Perhaps I didn’t make it clear enough…

***

If let’s say you subscribe to the .260 wOBA level as described in my blog, here is an extended view of the performance level required and number of years to be considered around the bubble level for HOF:
wOBA seasons WAR WAA
0.800 0.8 22.0 20.4
0.700 1.2 26.5 24.1
0.600 2.0 33.2 29.1
0.500 4.0 44.3 36.0
0.480 4.7 47.3 37.4
0.460 5.7 50.8 38.8
0.440 7.1 54.7 39.9
0.420 8.9 59.1 40.4
0.400 11.7 64.0 39.6
0.380 15.9 69.1 35.9
0.360 22.9 73.7 25.9
0.340 35.8 74.7 0.0

All of these performances are at the same number of standard deviations from .260.

wOBA is equivalent to OBP, with the corresponding expected SLG. So, a .400 OBP implies a .500 SLG, etc.

Bonds’ 4 seasons were probably in the .500 range, so by this assumption (the .260 level) that’s enough to get him in.

WAR is wins above replacement and WAA is wins above average.

As you can see, the WAA is a pretty good stand-in for what we want.

That said, if you don’t like the numbers in this table, perhaps you prefer a .220 comparison point (where you’d need say 5 Bonds seasons) or a .300 comparison point, as shown in the blog entry. That’s why this is pretty flexible, in the way that say WAR would be flexible by simply lowering or increasing whatever you think the replacement level should be.

***

The end.

Sh!t I wrote alot.

I think that David’s expression of the difference between Pujols and Palmeiro as a bunch of slash stats obfuscates the value difference between the two.  .251/.291/.378 sounds bad, but if you look at the difference in terms of RC and outs (I’m only using RC because it’s there on B-R; I don’t endorse it, and I wish that Sean would use something else):

Palmeiro: 2040 RC, 7857 outs
Pujols: 1139 RC, 3159 outs

901 runs in 4698 outs is 5.18/27 outs.  That is far from a useless level of performance; it’s well above replacement level, although it is below average for a first baseman.  I would not describe this as “10 years of horrible baseball” by a longshot.

Patriot, B-Ref also lists a player’s Batting Runs, park adjusted, relative to league average. 497.8 BR or 46.1 Batting Wins for Palmiero, and 468.7 BR/43.4 BW for Pujols, according to each’s Baseball-Reference.com page.

Palmeiro’s Fangraphs page has him as +43.7 wins.  Pujols is +45.1.  Either way, fairly even (hitting-wise anyway). 

That would seem to imply that you need league average performance in 7000 PA for Pujols to match Palmeiro’s career.

Colin, the use of Batting Wins in this case is sort of begging the question.  Of course the higher you set the baseline, the better Pujols will stack up with Palmeiro.

It seems to me like you’re compartmentalizing HOF standards into binary answers with little to no differentiation beyond the yes/no answer.  If I’m wrong, help me out, but how is your process not like this?

Does a player have a HOF peak - Yes/No?
Does a player have a HOF length - Yes/No?
Are there externalities to consider - Yes/No?

For the extreme cases, that is a fair description of my process.  If the answer to the first two questions is yes, that’s a clear HOFer.  If the answer to the first two questions is no, that’s clearly not a HOFer.

If the player has one or the other (like Palmeiro having a HOF career but not peak, or Martinez having a HOF peak but not career), then it requires further qualitative review. 

If the player is at all close to being in at this point, I consider the third question and see if there’s enough to push him over the threshold.

For Palmeiro, the peak is questionable.  It’s lower than what I would consider to be an average HOF peak, so he’s going to need something else to get in.  He has not just a HOF career, but one that is exceptionally long and productive in comparison to other HOFers (15th in career PA, 17th in career RC).  That’s enough for me so I don’t go to the third question, but if I needed to, I’d consider his excellent gray ink and his extreme in-season durability as some added value.

For Martinez, the lack of accumulated counting stats is an indicator that the career is questionable.  Clearly, he has a HOF peak, but is it exceptional among fellow HOFers?  I think it is pretty much the average peak for a HOF player (considering missed games, defense and baserunning).  He’s still really close, because the career isn’t an embarrassment.  The problem is that I can’t find anything to push him over the edge.  That’s why he’s out of my personal HOF. 

I am doing basically the same thing Tango suggests although my methodology is less mathematical, and that’s by design.  I don’t believe there is a HOF formula that works for every player so I won’t commit to “here is my baseline for zero-value, and here’s my total of wins above that value.”

I guess what I’m trying to get at is that I don’t view players on a linear curve, not peak or career value.  The difference between 600 HR and 500 HR is more significant to me than the difference between 500 HR and 400 HR… it’s not simply 100 more HR, but a premium placed on going to the next tier of exceptional production.

I suppose there’s some way to provide weightings to Tango’s formula that simulate this, but they will be very era-specific and extremely hard to quantify.  Since the number of players that are on the fringes is relatively small, it’s not worth the effort.  Also, how far should we extrapolate?  Should we consider the no-peak, 50-year career player?  Should we consider the 3-year career, Bonds-2004 player?

Certainly, whether you agree with my methodology or not, you can understand the process, and have a very good idea of which players are going to be in or out.