THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I expect it’ll be Lee Smith, but I really hope he doesn’t get in. I liked him and all, but I feel he’s overrated when it comes to the Hall of Fame.

I think when it comes to closers, that their stats in save situations are more important than anything else since that’s exactly what they’re used for almost exclusively—save situations.

And in his case, take his ERA in save sit’s as a quick example… 2.94. That’s exactly the same as Doug Jones and a few points worse than Armando Benitez’s 2.89. I don’t think either of them are HOF candidates or even close, so I’m pretty sure Lee Smith shouldn’t be in the Cooperstown conversation either.

I know ERA’s not perfect, but BR doesn’t list FIP in save situations and I haven’t taken the time to work that out for all closers with 200+ saves.

Nonetheless, I think lots of people will hang onto Lee Smith’s saves total and overlook his more telling stats, as long as he stays on the ballot.

If you want to focus exclusively on “when it matters”, B-R.com shows splits based on “high leverage”. You can compare how he does in the high, med, low, and see if he does better or worse.  Please report back your results!

Ohh cool, I’ll check that out later this afternoon & comment about it.

I don’t really see a cause celebre for the “old guard” coming up.  My guess is that what we’ll see is writers instead coming out strongly AGAINST the saber candidates.

But, if there were to be another “battle” between players, I think pitchers would be another great place to look.  My first guess to supplant Blyleven vs. Morris, looking at the upcoming years, is that Mike Mussina vs. Andy Pettitte will become the new debate.  I think the saber-oriented community will like Mussina, while the traditionalists will be unimpressed.  They’ll prefer Pettitte’s championships and postseason records, while Mussina will be called a “Hall of Very Good” guy.  But that’s just a guess.

Kenny Lofton vs Bernie Williams starting next year maybe?

Lofton has the clear WAR lead, Williams has his place as a key piece of the 90s Yankees.

I’m with David/4 here. I think the Morris/Rice issue comes from not having enough candidates that appease both sides. That won’t be a problem for near to distant future.

Looking at the High Leverage stats, I’m not sure what stats to pick here. They don’t show IP, so I can’t figure out an ERA, FIP, SO/9, or anything like that. I think that would be the best way to compare them all might be by comparing the BA/OBP/SLG? But that seems a bit too defense reliant.

We won’t have one after Morris. At that point, the steroid cases come on to the ballot and that will be the only debate for the next decade, over and over.

Yes, the Holy Writers are the perfect group to discuss morals and character.

***

Pettitte v Mussina: oh, I like that.  Excellent.

I expect Omar Vizquel to get a lot of support from the traditionalists but I can’t see any candidate that will cause writers to twist themselves in knots the way Morris has.

Andy Pettitte might be well-liked and have a long postseason resume, but he admitted taking HGH.  Although I believe he claims it was a single time I don’t think the writers will make an exception for him.

I don’t expect the HOF leadership to make radical changes to the voting process.  For example, no matter how good an idea, I don’t them putting a “ask me next year option”.

But one simple change, that would help a lot, is to eliminate the maximum 10 players on the ballot.  Last year while doing a mock ballot on BTF, I had to leave off guys who were qualified.  That situation is only going to get worse when the 2013 group is ready.

Will Carroll #8, Excellent point. The story is not going to be wins vs WAR, it is going to be roids vs no roids. Although, that does beg the question, what happens if Bonds and Clemens go in on the first ballot? Doesn’t that make the roids talk moot?

The more we discuss the HOF voting system, the more I think it might be nearly perfect.

Voting for ten players is more than enough. At some point you have to filter the borderline guys. The HOF is saying you have to make the distinction between 10 and 11...if you think there are that many worthy candidates on the ballot. (side question...has there ever been a ballot with 10 HOFers on it?)While you might think there are 11 guys (or 15 or 20) worthy players, just because you don’t put him on your ballot, doesn’t mean he’s out. He only needs to be on 5% of the ballots to get the de facto ask-me-next-year.

The de facto ask me next year is another beautiful feature of the HOF process. It keeps these good-but-not-quite HOFers fresh in our memories for 15 years, which IMO is nothing but a positive. In fact, to me it’s worth it to have a Jim Rice sneak in to keep the memory of Jack Morris alive 20 years after he retired...not to mention Blyleven.

I prefer the Hall Of Merit Elect-2, Elect-3 system.  It’s a system that celebrates.

(side question...has there ever been a ballot with 10 HOFers on it?)

...

Lots and lots and lots of times.

1980:  Aparicio, Ashburn, Bunning, Drysdale, Fox, Kaline, Schoendienst, Santo, Mazeroski, Wilhelm and what will you bet that neither Maris nor Hodges never make it?

1970:  Boudreau, Kiner, Wynn, Slaughter, Mize, Reese, Schoendienst, Newhouser, Kell, Gordon, Rizzuto, Lemon, Doerr, Snider, Ashburn.

1960: Roush, Rice, Rixey, Grimes, Bottomley, Ruffing, Faber, Cuyler, Wilson, Appling, Lazeri, Gomez, Mize, Combs, Medwick, Klein, Boudreau, Harris, Bancroft, Goslin, Hoyt, Hafey, Lopez, Sewell, Waner, Manush, Haines, Doerr, Jackson, Averill, Gordon, Durocher, Vaughn, Lindstrom, Lombardi, Grove, Kelly, Kiner, Joss, Ferrell—Lefty Grove, arguably the greatest pitcher ever, finished 72nd on the ballot.

1950: Ott, Terry, Foxx, Waner, Simmons, Heilman, Dean, Dickey, Maranville, Greenberg, Hartnett, Vance, Lyons, Cronin, Lazzeri, Gomez, Wheat, Youngs, Schalk, Roush, Wilson, Klein, Carey, Ruffing, Hoyt, Haines, Cuyler, Faber, Bancroft, Bottomley, jackson, Rixey, Grimes, Bender, Baker, Hafey, Harris, Stengel, Combs, Lombardi, Hooper, Goslin, Huggins, Waner, Coveleski, Southworth, McKechnie, Rice

As we move closer to the present, it gets more rare, but the longer time goes on, the more likely those years will have 10+.  Look at 1990: what do you want to be that some subset of Joe Torre, Dick Allen, Minnie Minoso, and Tony Oliva eventually join Palmer, Morgan, Perry, Jenkins, Bunning, Cepeda, Mazeroski, and Santo?.  1995 already has 7 (Schmidt, Niekro, Sutton, Perez, Santo, Rice, Sutter) and will likely eventually end up with more with Jim Kaat and Tommy John added to those listed in ‘90.

The Hall of Fame has never been about Musial, Mantle, Mathewson, and Mays ... it has been about the Applings, Aparicios, Ashburns, and Averills, very good to great players (and sometimes great personalities) but not the very best of the very best.

... follow up to #15

Setting aside 1936 when the Hall was opened and 72 players who received votes eventually were inducted, I don’t know in what year the number of eventual inductees peaked, but in 1945, the top THIRTY-THREE vote getters, plus another FIFTEEN later down the ballot were eventually inducted.  Plus that year, the Old Timers Committee selected 9 players and 1 manager from the 1800s.

There’s an average of 3 HOF per year.  How long does it take each guy to get voted?  Say about 7 years each on average?

That would mean there’s an average of 21 HOF on each ballot.

Just a wild guess here.  Someone else can plug in the actual numbers.

Let’s say Larkin gets in for 2012, and is the only one.  Here is my 2013 ballot:

Bagwell
Raines
Edgar
Trammell
Walker
McGwire
Palmeiro
Bonds
Clemens
Piazza
Sosa
Schilling
Biggio
Lofton

That’s 14 guys.  I’m not voting for borderline guys like Jack Morris, Fred McGriff, Bernie Williams, or Lee Smith here.  I want all of these guys in.  I’d be OK with Lofton, Walker, Palmeiro having to wait a bit.  But somebody else might think it’s McGwire and Schilling who should be waiting.  Then of course the guys who won’t vote for steroid players.  The end result is that different deserving players are left off every ballot, and it gets harder for anyone to get to 75%.

Let’s say all those factors mean only Biggio gets in for 2013.  The rest of the players come back, and are joined by:

Maddux
Thomas
Glavine
Kent
Mussina

Let the smart voters like Posnanski and Davidoff vote for 15 guys if they want.  I know a lot of voters will still only put 3-4 on their ballots, but give the new BBWAA voters a chance.

The issue is steroids, not the ballot. Nobody knows what’s going to happen with Bonds and Clemens. If they go in on the first ballot, steroids will become less and less of a factor going forward. The longer they stay on the ballot, the bigger the steroid problem, the more likely someone gets screwed that wouldn’t have otherwise.

Of 17 players born in 1950s and inducted, they averaged 4.9 years on the ballot.  Presumably Raines and a couple of others might get some love to push this up a little.

1940s and inducted: 17 players, 2.1 years on the ballot. 

1930s and inducted: 25 players, 4.1 yrs

1920s and inducted: 18 players, 7.9 yrs

1910s and inducted: 21 players, 6.5 yrs

1900s and inducted: 42 players, 5.9 yrs

So, we’re talking about 20 players every decade, or two players a year.  Maybe 2.5 players by the time Veteran’s Committee, etc.  About 5-6 years on the ballot, after all is said and done?

That means, there’s about 10-15 players on every ballot that would eventually make the HOF.

Given that the average HOF voter puts 5-6 names, allowing the voter to go up to 15 names would seem fine to me.

I think that if there had been no strike in 1994-95, there is a good chance that McGriff reaches 500 HRs. About 65 games missed, so the extra 7 HRs is not alot to add. If McGriff had 500 HRs, would he get voted in by the writers? My guess is yes since I don’t recall any PED scandals about him

POZ wrote:

“Don Mattingly’s career was too short, but few would say McGriff was as good a player as Mattingly at their best. I wouldn’t.”

From 1984-86, Mattingly had an OPS+ of 158. From 1988-90, McGriff had an OPS+ of 159. McGriff’s 1988-91 OPS+ of 156 also beats Mattingly’s 1984-87 OPS+ of 155.

But in WAR, Mattingly is ahead over three years 19.6-16 and ahead over 4 years 25.3-20.6. Over the 4 years Mattingly had 0.7 more defensive WAR, so that is only a small part of the difference, meaning Mattingly’s offensive WAR advantage was 4.0. He had about 157 more PAs. It does not seem like that would give him an edge of 4.0. I can’t tell what accounts for it.

I also found Mattingly’s best 4 year period for Win Shares was 14 better than McGriff’s (122-108)

I think part of the obsession with Jack Morris, and the reason there isn’t anyone like him coming on the ballot is that he is seen as one of the last of a dying breed - the workhorse pitcher.  His 10-inning shutout was the last until Halladay threw one in 2003 (and then Mulder in 2005).  I don’t think any pitcher has thrown 10 innings since Halladay and Harang did so in 2007.
He was also a “winner” when that term was actually accepted to mean something.

Usually the gut-feel you-know-it-when-you-see-it test for a Hall of Fame candidate corresponds very well with how excited I was to get his baseball card when I was 10 years old.  Griffey, Thomas, Henderson, Gwynn, Ripken, Boggs, Brett, Bonds, Clemens, and of course Nolan Ryan were the prized possessions in the early 90s.  Mattingly’s and Murphy’s cards were much more exciting to get than Trammell’s or Whitaker’s and that’s reflected in their vote totals.  One odd thing is that to my friends and me, Jack Morris wasn’t any different than Dennis Martinez or Frank Tanana.  It’s also odd that many BBWAA writers still cling to the same view as a 10-year old that was just introduced to the game and learned everything he knew about who was good from the bold or italicized stats on the backs of cards and the prices in the Beckett book.

Haha, I love that.  They think like 10yr olds and have never grown up from that.  Wonderful perpective.

Right, there’s nothing to differentiate Jack Morris from Dennis Martinez.  And El Presidente has substance abuse issues (alcohol I think).  From 1983-86, when he should have been at his peak, he was a replacement level pitcher.  Indeed, his nickname was “Cy Future” with the Orioles before all that happened.  His career with Montreal, in his 30s, was a thing to behold, a brilliant pitcher who would go toe-to-toe with the best.

And with all his problems, he was still as good or better than Morris.

Haha, I love that.  They think like 10yr olds and have never grown up from that.  Wonderful perpective.

Is that so wrong from the perspective of fandom? I’m not advocating that 10 year olds GM my favorite team, but from the perspective of enjoying the game, why not?

Sure, absolutely, if you want to love the game, the best way is to look at it as if you are 10 years old.

In terms of the trustees of baseball history: uhhhhh… no.

The beneficiaries of that trust are the fans though.

Haha, another good point.  So, 10 yr old thinkers for 10 yr old followers, while us middle-aged men lament how they don’t reason like adults.

Perfect.  I can buy that.

The adults are the ones that make money off the thing.

By selling to the 10 year old thinkers

Listening to 10yr olds talk about PED is like listening to 10yr olds talk about sex.

31/
You really need to add a “like” or “+/-” feature to your comment system, because sometimes that’s all that needs to be said.