Comments on: POLL: Kevin Brown and the Hall of Fame http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7265 This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6 By: Matt Young http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7265/comment-page-1#comment-31707 Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:27:19 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7265#comment-31707 You're right Johnny Twisto --Nobody's Hall list would be perfect, so they'll always be ones that perhaps don't belong and ones that perhaps should belong. Like Josh said, someone has to be the worst of the best.. I see names in the Hall and in the HOM that you could argue are no better or worse than the other. I'm OK with all that. I just don't think the WAR necessarily does a hands down better job than what is already being done. It's an important tool to be used and looked at --all the voters should look at it. . I don't think the Hall is too large, if anything it's slightly too small IMO. Simmons, Trammell, Santo, Tiant, and Blyleven should be in along with perhaps Whitaker, Mullane, John, Grich, Morris and a few others. The HOM does correctly put Trammell, Santo, Blyleven, and Simmons in. We'll see how Raines (and Trammell) plays out --he should get in in time. Trammell is certainly getting robbed! After Bert goes in everyone should take up Trammell's cause. I think he's getting it the worst.

]]>
By: Johnny Twisto http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7265/comment-page-1#comment-31672 Mon, 19 Jul 2010 17:44:41 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7265#comment-31672 Matt, can you name ~230 guys who clearly belong in the HOF? If you think the HOF is too big, that's fine, but the HOM's purpose was to be the same size as the HOF. Of course some guys will be borderliners; how could that not be the case?

]]>
By: Matt Young http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7265/comment-page-1#comment-31657 Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:20:11 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7265#comment-31657 Saberhagen is in Hall of Merit too.

]]>
By: Matt Young http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7265/comment-page-1#comment-31652 Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:20:30 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7265#comment-31652 The Hall of Merit site is very interesting but there are also dubious names elected there-- Torre, Nettles, Randolph, Steib, Darrell Porter, Reggie Smith, Will Clark, Keith Hernandez, Minnie Minoso, and Dwight Evans. All very fine players, some borderliners, many not even borderliners IMO. Dwight Evans is my all-time favorite red sox, and he should have gotten more HoF play, but he also falls short IMO.

]]>
By: Matt Young http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7265/comment-page-1#comment-31650 Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:46:59 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7265#comment-31650 None of these guys are Hall worthy: Tanana, Cone, Koosman, Finley, Rueschel, and Saberhagen. The WAR is a bit imperfect as well. It be just as bad as the writers or Veterans Committee putting in some oddballs due to cronyism. I do think Tiant and John have better arguments and should likely go in. Kaat should not get in.

]]>
By: Matt Young http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7265/comment-page-1#comment-31592 Mon, 19 Jul 2010 02:06:42 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7265#comment-31592 Yes, philosophical difference (I actually read the book above), but the truth surely lies in the middle. I think the sabermetrics can be a bit like losing the forest through the trees. It's very important stuff to look at, but so is the rest of the bigger picture. As for your first paragraph above, Dawson and Rice went in when they should have (near the end of eligibility), Santo should get/be in I agree, Sutter had a great peak (it was almost all peak) and he was a bit of a pioneer, Whitaker falling off in first ballot is a crime, I think Blyleven should be in, but I do get why he's waited a while, Raines should be getting more play but we'll see how it ends up, and to say Larkin misses, come on, he wasn't a first ballot kind of guy, but he's going to get in in a few years. As for the mix of guys above, the Hall (and sabermetricians for relievers to a degree) has always had a hard time evaluating speed, the save, and even starting pitchers. There are always going to be nuances and anomalies that no stat will ever correct for.

]]>
By: Josh http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7265/comment-page-1#comment-31590 Mon, 19 Jul 2010 01:38:24 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7265#comment-31590 Should read, "Not walking batters and not giving up home runs are entirely individual achievements..."

]]>
By: Josh http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7265/comment-page-1#comment-31589 Mon, 19 Jul 2010 01:35:07 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7265#comment-31589 "Besides, saying the only reason why we're talking about Pettitte is because of wins is like saying the only reason why we're talking about Brown is because he kept the ball in the park more and walked less people than norm. Last I checked baseball was still a team sport. They are as equally important."

Not an apt analogy at all. Winning a game is half scoring runs and half preventing runs. The team wins the game. Batters contribute to the winning effort by producing runs. Preventing runs is mostly pitching and some defense. A pitcher can do his part in preventing runs by not giving up hits (mostly influenced by strikeout rate), not walking batters, and not giving up home runs. Not walking batters and not giving up runs is an entirely individual achievement just like hitting home runs is on the offensive side. We like Babe Ruth because he hit home runs and got on base more than anyone else of his time. Babe did his individual part to help the team win by hitting well. I say Brown is better than Pettitte because Brown was much better at preventing the opponent from scoring because he didn't walk guys or give up home runs. He was better at pitching. Pettitte happened to play on teams with better hitters, so they won more in spite of Pettitte allowing more runs, so what the heck did those extra team wins have to do with Pettitte? He wasn't batting.

]]>
By: Josh http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7265/comment-page-1#comment-31588 Mon, 19 Jul 2010 01:20:58 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7265#comment-31588 I agree most of the biggest mistakes have been due to the veterans committee, and if anything the writers elect too few guys. I mostly wish the writers would be more consistent if they're only going to take a few guys; you let in guys like Rice or Dawson and Puckett goes in on the first ballot, but Raines gets limited support, Whitaker falls off the ballot in the first year, Santo can't get in, Sutter beats out Blyleven, Larkin misses...

On Catfish, we just have a big philosophical difference. I say a 3.34 ERA in 1973 Oakland is not a particularly great year. Catfish didn't go 21-5: His team won those games. It is a team sport, and you can't give the credit for a victory to a single player. Catfish was one player of nine and did an average-ish job, but everyone else was great. The 1973 A's led the league in runs in spite of being in a tremendous pitcher's park. They scored 5.6 runs per game in Catfish starts in a 3-something run per game environment. The team had great defense. Catfish was average and along for the ride. He was the third best starter. Let's honor the real stars of that team like Jackson and Bando and not give the credit to Catfish, who was perfectly decent but was not the reason for those wins.

"f we rely on WAR too much what will voters do with Tanana, Cone, Koosman, Finley, Rueschel, and Saberhagen in 30 years"

Baseball Think Factory has a "Hall of Merit" project where contributors go through history and try to elect the most worthy players of all time while being fair to all eras and while keeping the HOM at the same size as the HOF. The contributors are not totally WAR-based at all, but most use saber principles. Only Saberhagen has made it from your list in a close call, and honestly I can't complain about it. The guy's career was short but he was an amazing pitcher when healthy, and if you're going to have 200-some players, he should probably slide in. Cone has support and may make it at some point -- he's well below average for a HOF sure but had some very good seasons, and someone has to be the worst worthy player in the hall. Some people like Rueschel as well; his surface numbers don't jump out, but he was victimized by some terrible defense. He's the anti-Morris: durable with lots of innings pitched in prime, better run prevention than Jack, got terrible instead of good defense, and got poor run support instead of great run support, and didn't do well in limited postseason duty. I think WAR actually does a nice job of seeing the subtle value in a guy like Reushel, even if I think he's pretty borderline myself.

]]>
By: Matt Young http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/7265/comment-page-1#comment-31585 Mon, 19 Jul 2010 00:54:22 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=7265#comment-31585 Besides, saying the only reason why we're talking about Pettitte is because of wins is like saying the only reason why we're talking about Brown is because he kept the ball in the park more and walked less people than norm. Last I checked baseball was still a team sport. They are as equally important.

]]>