Comments on: POLL: Kenny Lofton and the Hall of Fame http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/8020 This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6 By: Pat Lynch http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/8020/comment-page-2#comment-47014 Thu, 09 Sep 2010 11:42:16 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=8020#comment-47014 I can't understand why anybody could think Andre Dawson does not belong. That's dumb.

]]>
By: JeffW http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/8020/comment-page-2#comment-46587 Wed, 08 Sep 2010 06:45:14 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=8020#comment-46587 If Felix wins out (not a certainty, with the lack of support), he can still reach 15.

]]>
By: Lefty33 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/8020/comment-page-2#comment-45864 Mon, 06 Sep 2010 05:45:29 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=8020#comment-45864 Whether CC is the front runner or not Felix has got no chance at the CYA.

He's not going to get votes with only having won such a small number of games and being a .500 pitcher at best. Look at what happened with Ryan in '87.

He was clearly the best pitcher in the NL but his Astros team was worse than what Felix has got going on in Seattle this year and Ryan doesn't get votes because he's 8-16.

Ryan finished behind:

Bedrosian who won as a closer. (A sick joke)

Sutcliffe who almost walked more guys than Reuschel struck out. And his ERA was almost a full run higher than Ryan.

Reuschel only won 13 games.

And Hershiser who while winning 16 also lost 16.

If CC wins 20+ and the Yankees make the playoffs hands down he's the front runner and will win the CYA.
To think anything else is just delusional.

]]>
By: Matt Y http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/8020/comment-page-2#comment-45524 Sat, 04 Sep 2010 20:14:37 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=8020#comment-45524 I completely get that, and I like the peripherals, but sorry, I'm not voting for someone with 12 wins for the Cy --again, you can't have big, big holes in the resume, and while yes this perhaps unfairly hurts Felix too many in the saberworld, realistically I think it's fine to vote for someone with nearly double the wins and is in top 5-10 in almost every other stat.

Some people didn't like that Grienke won with 16 wins last year--I had no problem with that, but anyone that would vote for Hernenadez with 12 wins is just as big of an idiot as a sportswriter picking CC --actually, strike that, anyone voting for Felix with 12 wins over CC with say 22 wins, is definitely the one making the bigger nonsensical choice!

]]>
By: Todd http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/8020/comment-page-2#comment-45486 Sat, 04 Sep 2010 18:14:51 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=8020#comment-45486 Well, there are two ways to look at things here. Looked at from an analytical perspective, CC is not the frontrunner. But looked at from the standpoint of your typical idiot sportswriter, CC is the frontrunner.

I hope that clarifies things.

]]>
By: JeffW http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/8020/comment-page-2#comment-45481 Sat, 04 Sep 2010 17:52:34 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=8020#comment-45481 Matt Y,

First: Yes, I know this should be in the Cy Young thread.

But I have to take exception with the impression that CC is the "clear" Cy Young frontrunner. I would say Sabathia's assumed superiority is anything but!

Felix leads the league in WAR for pitchers, starts (tied-with Sabathia), innings, strikeouts (tied-with Weaver), batters faced, adjusted pitching runs, adjusted pitching wins, base-out runs saved, situational wins saved, base-out wins saved, and is second in adjusted ERA+. He's also second in ERA.

Neutralized and even allowing for the fact that Safeco Field is a friendlier park for pitchers, Felix's numbers look like this: 18-9, 2.75. Sabathia suffers greatly when neutralized: 14-11, 3.55.

For all the talk I hear here about wins not being important, the only numerical advantage anywhere that Sabathia has over Felix is in wins.

Let's look at that. Talk about being able to sue for non-support! Felix has 14 quality starts that have resulted in a loss or no-decision.

Tightening the quality screws even more, Hernandez has 10 starts in which he has surrendered two or fewer earned runs in seven or more innings, in which he has either a loss or no-decision to show for his efforts! And four games in which he pitched at least seven innings and surrendered one run or less, but doesn't have a win.

By comparison, Sabathia has pretty-much maxed-out in win potential, having just two quality starts in which he did not receive a win. On the other hand, he has four starts in which he surrendered at least four runs in which he did not lose, more of a sign that has received much better support.

What's the use of having all these fancy methods for breaking down a player's performance, if we don't put them to work when it really matters?

Sabathia has been very good this year. But giving the Cy Young to Sabathia over Hernandez ignores that fact that Felix has been the better pitcher. If anything, the M's last road trip -- in which Felix clearly dominated the Yankees and Red Sox -- should make that even more apparent.

In six August starts, Felix pitched 43.2 innings and posted an ERA of 0.82. From May 13th forward, his ERA is 1.88, and he's surrendered just eight home runs in the 167.1 innings that period covers. He has fanned 161 and walked 39 during that stretch. That is dominant pitching.

Annointing Sabathia is akin to simply giving the Gold Glove to the guy with better offensive stats.

And we know that has never happened... 😉

]]>
By: Matt Y http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/8020/comment-page-2#comment-45440 Sat, 04 Sep 2010 15:38:43 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=8020#comment-45440 As an aside I think CC is now the clear Cy Young frontrunner. Sorry, there's no way I'm voting for someone that's 10-10 or 10-8.

]]>
By: Todd http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/8020/comment-page-2#comment-45403 Sat, 04 Sep 2010 13:48:49 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=8020#comment-45403 Re: Dimaggio

I'm not sure he fits in with Mays/Mantle/Cobb/Speaker, but I included him because he did lose three prime years to the war and I think that, with those three years added in to his otherwise comparatively brief career, he'd reach 100 WAR and therefore clearly belong with the others.

Re: Catchers

I don't see how you can exclude Bench and Berra from the restrictive Hall. They belong with the others because they are the best at their position and had fairly long careers. It doesn't matter if they were each 80 WAR behind Mantle or something like that.

]]>
By: Justin Jones http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/8020/comment-page-2#comment-45325 Sat, 04 Sep 2010 07:20:47 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=8020#comment-45325 @162:

I didn't miss Turkey Stearnes; I omitted him because he played about as much left field and first base as he did center field. Riley's "Biographical Encyclopedia of the Negro Baseball Leagues" has him at CF, 1B, LF; Bill James' Historical Abstract has him as a LF, as do some other sources.

The list of CFs that I think were superior players to Edmonds is not: a) a list of players with greater career WAR totals than Edmonds; b) a list of players with greater career Win Shares than Edmonds; c) a list of players who are all in the Hall of Fame, or d) a list of players who played longer than Edmonds.

It is just a list of people that I think were better players than Edmonds. What goes into my own evaluation of "best" player isn't "Total of Metric X". Stats are great, they are timeless in a sense, and an essential starting point. But they are malleable, and always undergoing new interpretations. What weight does one give to peak-value vs. career totals? What length of time constitutes a "peak"? What weight to give post-season performance? How about performance in regular-season games in the heat of pennant races? And there is anecdotal evidence to consider, contemporary eyewitness accounts of players to consider, subjective elements to be considered or discarded, and so on.

WAR isn't the be-all end-all of everything. It isn't a debate-ender, or an argument-settler. It is simply a tool, one of many that you can use when evaluating players. According to FanGraphs, Andruw Jones has a greater career WAR than Edmonds. I don't think that that makes Andruw Jones a better player, or a more valuable player, than Edmonds. Our own eyes and ears must ultimately factor into the equation. There are always other factors to consider besides "Well, my spreadsheet says X, so I say X." I am a baseball fan who finds the judicious use of statistical analysis to be illuminating; I am not a statistics fetishist whose outlet happens to be baseball.

I would not vote for Jim Edmonds' induction to the Hall of Fame. Nor would I vote for Kenny Lofton, getting back to the point of this thread.

]]>
By: Michael E Sullivan http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/8020/comment-page-2#comment-45102 Fri, 03 Sep 2010 17:05:08 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=8020#comment-45102 Justin @157:

You say "weasel" I say "making the clear the implication of your comment that he is was 17th or 18th 'at best'".

"at best" means that you think he might be lower, but he should never be higher, so you consider the players you put ahead of him "unarguably" ahead.

My response is pretty much that of John DiFool at 160. You put a lot of guys up there, that I can't see any reason to put ahead of Edmonds, and I agree with him pretty much about who they are. Of guys with full Major League records, you've got 7 clearly ahead of him (I say Snider is debatable, but I'll give him). Then another 4 guys with partial or no major league record that are anywhere between probably as good (Doby) to probably much better (Charleston) (and you missed Stearnes who's in the HoF), then you list another 5 that every WAR/winshares/whatever metric I've seen would put clearly behind Edmonds, and I don't see any good reason looking at the stats to doubt that decision.

The only way these guys look better than Jim Edmonds is if you don't pay attention to the fact that the 20s and 30s were nearly as big offensively as the 90s and 2000s, and you look at BA and ignore OBP.

]]>