from Amazon
Monday, January 03, 2011
Fielding value and the HOF
Ah, I like this point from Dave, that basically says that the perception of the gap between a good and bad fielder is larger than the gap between a fantastic and good fielder. Basically, it’s as if we regress Andruw Jones and Andre Dawson’s fielding toward each other much stronger than we would regress Roberto Alomar and Jeff Kent. One can also say that perhaps outfield fielding is given a short shrift, or that a much larger positional penalty is applied in the outfield than infield. But, for every argument I can make like that, I can show that that’s not the case.
Basically, there is a certain level of inconsistency, and that’s the main point I would drive home. It’s not important that you use WAR or WAA (wins above replacement or wins above average), but that you use something, anything, to ensure some consistency in the process. As it stands, it seems that every player starts with a clean slate, and then, some data is picked and chosen and given a particular weight that is inconsistent with other players.
You ever buy a computer online? Try it. Go to Dell.com, and start to customize. You will be given every option you want, and you will be told what it will cost if you want to include, or exclude, that item. What I would suggest therefore is the following: give the voters a baseline view of what the statistical record represents, and what was considered and not. And then they can add or subtract as they wish based on the information being considered being faulty, or the weight wrong. Want to include clutch? Well, that means giving Tim Raines +6 wins and Mike Schmidt -12 wins (or whatever). Don’t like that? Then, give it 50% weight. But that means Tony Gwynn’s +10 clutch becomes +5 clutch as well. Ozzie gets +15 wins just for playing SS (or whatever). You like that? Good, because Alan Trammell is going to get something similar. Oh, you don’t like that? Well, it’s going to cost Ozzie too.
It’s a personalized ballot that adheres to some consistency. It lets the voter choose what we wants to consider, and the computer just makes it easier to compile it for him.
Today, in 2011, it’s not practical to do what I suggest. But, 5 or 10 years from now? Sure, why not…
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 344 pages 1 2 3 > Last »Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date