124 Responses to “Bert Blyleven & Roberto Alomar Elected To Cooperstown”

1. Dr. Doom Says:
   January 7th, 2011 at 12:24 am

   Well, I agree with both of you, obviously. And that's why I do have to agree that numbers don't settle everything, and that would be true even with great defensive stats. On the plus side, though, #1, we're getting there. Defensive stats are much, MUCH better than they were even ten years ago. #2, we know that about 15% of the game is fielding (37% pitching, 48% hitting, if I recall my Bill James correctly). That means that over 3/4 of what a player does is measured with the bat, and therefore that alone gives us a pretty good idea. Therefore, if we want to look at it purely mathematically, you could build in a subjective defensive factor which changed things up to about 24% of a player's total ability. That's actually a LOT when we're talking about mid-level to very good players, but not so much when we talk about the giants of the game. Keeping in mind, though, that it's really hard to be so awful as to be worth 0 and likewise difficult (though not quite as) to be so good as to earn the full value, it probably won't affect that much. I, personally, would recommend some sort of hybrid with modern defensive metrics (personally, I like the Win Shares fielding analysis, though WAR is good, too) AND a subjective factor. But that's just my opinion. Obviously, the subjective ALWAYS has a place in sports dialogue - particularly when it comes to ranking players. But only within reason, which means there has to be SOME sort of logic behind it. Those are just my thoughts; any others?

2. John Autin Says:
   January 7th, 2011 at 12:32 am

   I'd just like to express my deep thanks and admiration to everyone who brings real, documented facts to the table -- even when they're used against my own arguments, 'cause that's how my knowledge grows -- and especially to those willing to do the work of finding, presenting and explaining in civil terms the objective facts necessary to refute some of the uninformed statements that occasionally find their way into these posts.

   It does get old sometimes when fact-based, thoughtfully-constructed arguments are simply brushed off, or when we are derided as "stat-nerds" and "geeks" simply because we try to build our arguments on what can be objectively verified and quantified. But it's still the only worthwhile path, to me. After all, we are on Baseball-Reference.com.

3. Nash Bruce Says:
   January 7th, 2011 at 1:37 am

   I'd agree with you John, only if I could point to #101 Dr Doom's post, as additional feedback......well said Dr.!
   In my opinion, I'd also like to add, that, I do believe that, someday, everything will be explainable by numbers. But, that does not mean that the present numbers are full on accurate. Is Bill James' assertion that pitching/hitting/defense is x amount of the game? I don't know. But, he is the expert for now, and certainly has done way more homework than I!!!:))
   It does gall me a little, that, in Jim Rice's case, he is allowed in, while Dale Murphy's defensive contributions would be overlooked....(for the record, I'd put neither in the HOF.)

4. Mike Felber Says:
   January 7th, 2011 at 3:57 am

   Mr. Bruce, it does not seem mature or fair to call stat talk "garbage". And it invalidates your throwaway line that you think it is fine. There are innumerable instances not only where we can show things are we over or under valued in baseball, but scientifically testing all realms of human experience, even eye witness identification, there is often HUGE variation of perception from reality. preconceptions, selection bias, conventional opinion pressure, something looking impressive when it has less impact than figured, or vice versa...These things are rife throughout the human condition.

   Even something as 1 dimensional as who was the best at getting hits or homers-if we did not count, reputation would often diverge from reality. Who throws faster: Randy Johnson is right around a full foot taller than Billy Wagner, more intimidating, & was a much better pitcher. Without the same radar gum trained on them, WHO do you think would be habitually clocked as 2-3 MPH faster?

   Mattingly certainly would have been an HOF man if not for his injury. But i assume when you say "one of the best ever", you mean at least amongst the top dozen of all time, an immortal. No, defense is important, but as the posts above show, not how you create most of your value. Even for a middle infielder, though a great catcher & game caller means most. For 1B, there is only so much value you can add.

   And while Donnie Baseball was an excellent hitter at his peak, his context exaggerated that a bit, most notably in RBIs. He never had a season near Gehrig's AVERAGE season in offensive differential from the league, less than Pujol's average year too, to hit some of the best at his position. Nor even as good a year as the very best years of his time. But he was the next level down, 2x leading the league in OPS +, though his best year, 161, is an excellent peak. But not historic level. With a good back he would have had more years approaching that level, sailed into the HOF deservedly, but no indication he would have a rarefied 200 level year.

5. Ghost of Horace Clarke Says:
   January 7th, 2011 at 11:39 am

   Did anyone read about that writer from Chicago who was tweeting these gems? Teddy Greenstein put his votes up on Twitter (Alomar, Blyleven, Raines, Lee Smith and Mattingly).
   He said Mattingly because he was his all time favorite player and he said he will probably vote Bagwell next year.

   After reading that I tweeted back at him and asked him his logic for not including Larkin. His response: "Close call. Numbers prob justify and will give long look next yr"

   That just strikes me the same as the above comment George made concerning a writer should do more upfront research. It just irks me a deserving guy like Larkin has to "wait in line" before he will most likely get in next year.
   Voting for players because he is your all time favorite player is something 8 year olds do with All Star game ballots. Professional sportswriters whose job it is to analyze and elect the very best players to an elite fraternity called the Baseball Hall of Fame who use the same voting methods of 8 year olds should have their voting privileges revoked.

   I realize we are human and that comes into play but listening to this makes you wonder how exactly these guys get credentials?

6. Chuck Says:
   January 7th, 2011 at 12:23 pm

   Larkin SHOULD wait in line.

   While he's a virtual cinch to get in next year, he was NOT better than Alan Trammell.

7. Johnny Twisto Says:
   January 7th, 2011 at 1:52 pm

   Well, Trammell's not going to be elected by the writers. Do you think Larkin should have to wait for something which may never happen, or should he be inducted if he's worthy?

   Anyway, it's not clear to me that Trammell was better, and it's obviously not clear to most voters. Tram had some great seasons, but every 2 or 3 years he would suddenly bat .250.

8. Dr. Doom Says:
   January 7th, 2011 at 3:38 pm

   I think the biggest thing in the Larkin/Trammell debate is that Trammell basically had to play his entire career in the shadows of Yount and Ripken. Larkin stood head-and-shoulders above his National League "peers" at shortstop, and thus it's a lot easier to see him as a dominating player than it is Trammell. I mean, it's hardly Trammell's fault he played at the same time and in the same league as two of the best 5 or 6 SSs to ever play the game - but it's hard for the voters to understand that sometimes, I think. And really, it's that fact that hurt him more than the fact that he retired just as the Rodriguez/Jeter/Garciaparra era began. I think it's that when people think Shortstop/AL/1980s, Alan Trammell is the third name that comes to mind, and many people think that means he's not "worthy."

9. Bastaducci Says:
   January 7th, 2011 at 4:02 pm

   I love my Bill James and rarely will ever disagree with anything he says... but... if he wrote this "15% of the game is fielding (37% pitching, 48% hitting " I could not disagree more. defense is everything in all sports, and the Pitcher is in my opinion at least 75 % of your defense (probably more). there is nothing more important than pitching. I love hitting as it is the easiest thing in baseball to get a accurate account of but its importance pales in comparison to pitching. there is no other sport where 1 man means as much to it's defense as a pitcher in baseball. pitchers don't get the love because people(including myself) come to see offense. defense wins championships.

10. mikeyjax Says:
    January 7th, 2011 at 4:22 pm

    After my Q has been buried so far down by the debate (and trust me I enjoy the debate) I still prevail upon somebody out there to tell me how one can have a triple to deep SS?

    Thanks again

11. Johnny Twisto Says:
    January 7th, 2011 at 4:36 pm

    he wrote this "15% of the game is fielding (37% pitching, 48% hitting " I could not disagree more. defense is everything in all sports, and the Pitcher is in my opinion at least 75 % of your defense (probably more).

    If he said pitching is 37% of the game and fielding is 15%, then pitching *is* about 75% of defense.

    As I recall, that 52/48 split was a fudge to make the numbers work in Win Shares. I don't remember why. Clearly, offense and defense are each half of the game. How can defense be "everything"? It is possible to win a game despite allowing runs/points. It is impossible to win a game without scoring.

    there is no other sport where 1 man means as much to it's defense as a pitcher in baseball. pitchers don't get the love

    No one disputes that. Pitchers get plenty of love. But defense is still only half the game.

    defense wins championships.

    A cliche. Evidence? A combination of offense and defense wins games, and championships.

    You are taking statements made to Little Leaguers to get them to focus on fundamentals and expanding them into universal truths.

12. Dr. Doom Says:
    January 7th, 2011 at 4:37 pm

    Uh... sorry Bastaducci, but I have to disagree. First of all, if 52% of the game is pitching/defense, then 37/52=71.1%. So yeah, pitching is about 3/4 of a defense. Second of all, I'm actually surprised the figure for offense is 48%. I always assumed 51% - the reasoning being that in baseball (like many sports), the defense is incapable of scoring points. It can only prevent. Take football, though. A wretched offense and stellar defense (2000 Baltimore is the perfect example) works, because even if the offense is terrible, the defense can produce points *without the offense*. It's impossible, impossible, IMPOSSIBLE to win a baseball game without scoring. That's why offense is important. If you truly believe that all of baseball is defense (and you said "everything"), then the only player to have been rated accurately historically is Willie Mays. Babe Ruth is the one of the most overrated players ever, because he was far from the best ever with the glove. I just can't agree with you line of thinking.

13. Chuck Says:
    January 7th, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    Mikeyjax@ # 110,

    Yes, on 7/4/92 Alomar did in fact hit a triple to "deep short."

    Obviously, the ball would have deflected off the shortstop towards the OF where he retrieved it. No other defensive player would have touched the ball, so Alomar simply beat throw to third.

    I checked BR, Retrosheet and the Jays' 1992 Wikipedia page for a more detailed play description but was unable to find anything.

14. kds Says:
    January 8th, 2011 at 2:54 am

    To pile on Bastaducci; if pitching were much more important than hitting, and we had a .300 hitter facing a pitcher who had a .250 BA against, and another pair where a .250 batter was facing a pitcher who had a .300 BA against; we would expect in both cases that the resulting average would be much closer to the pitcher's average than to the hitter's. This is not the case. This has been studied and the results in both cases would be the same. See "The Book".

    The figures I have seen most often recently put fielding at about 15% of run prevention. So pitching is about 43% of baseball. I think this has been discussed at The Book Blog. (insidethebook.com)

15. barkfart Says:
    January 8th, 2011 at 7:44 pm

    #111 Johnny T

    I think you might of misunderstood Bastaducci's 75%.

    What I read into what he said- and I FIRMLY believe- pitchers, by their own actions, go a long way (75%) in contributing to the defense.

    A pitcher who nibbles and walks too many, makes his defense get lethargic. A pitcher who works quickly keeps his fielders attentive. And, I think most importantly, some pitchers generate different ground balls than others.

    I've always tought this to be a great defect of the analysis of defense- the assumption that all ground balls are equal, and that all pitches that lead to ground balls are equal. The pitcher is a monstrous factor in those things.

16. John Autin Says:
    January 10th, 2011 at 1:22 am

    @115, Barkfart -- "I've always tought this to be a great defect of the analysis of defense- the assumption that all ground balls are equal, and that all pitches that lead to ground balls are equal. The pitcher is a monstrous factor in those things."

    If that is so, then why do pitchers' batting average on balls in play (BAbip) tend to regress to the mean? Over the last 5 years combined, Fausto Carmona has a 96 ERA+, Javier Vazquez a 107 ERA+ and Justin Verlander a 117 ERA+. But all 3 have a .297 BAbip.

    By your reasoning, Verlander's admittedly nastier "stuff" should lead to more weakly batted balls than Carmona gets. But there's no sign of that in the BAbip.

17. CIO resumes: Passing the eyeball test and the black ink test - CIO Symmetry Says:
    January 10th, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    [...] character and qualifications is a tough thing. The annual debate over the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame voting is going on, following the announcement of the two newest members, Roberto Alomar and Bert [...]

18. barkie Says:
    January 10th, 2011 at 8:19 pm

    #116 John Austin

    Something to chew on there. Well crafted.

19. Keeter Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 7:12 pm

    Sorry, but I still do not believe that Blylevin should be in. I'm perhaps in the minority, but I don't. To me, someone that is in The Hall should have been one of the most dominant players of their era. I never saw him as dominant. He only made 2 All-Star teams, never finished higher than 3rd in a Cy Young vote, and gave up 430 HR's (50 & 46 in single seasons). Now, I know that stats are used differently now, but over his 20-whatever years, only 2 times did his peers think he was good enough to be an All-Star ?

    My 2 cents worth......

20. Keeter Says:
    January 11th, 2011 at 7:17 pm

    And what about Tommy John and Jim Kaat for The Hall ? Similar stat lines between them & Blylevin:

    Blylevin John Kaat
    Wins 287 288 283
    Losses 254 231 237
    Innings 4970 4710 4530
    Shutouts 60 46 31
    ERA 3.31 3.34 3.45
    Highest Cy
    Young Voting 3,3,4 2,2,4 5
    Highest MVP
    Voting 13 12 5

    Other achievements:

    Blylevin: Led league in shutouts 3 times, K's once
    John: Led league in Win % 2 times (each league), led league in shutouts 3 times, famous elbow surgery named after him !
    Kaat: 1966 Pitcher of the Year, won 16 Gold Gloves, only man to face both Ted Williams & Ryne Sandberg !

    So, how about some love for John & Kaat ?!

21. Nash Bruce Says:
    January 13th, 2011 at 1:09 am

    @104 Mike- Very good sir. When I used the term "garbage" I was using my bar voice.....the tone of one in a casual, relaxed environment. I, while still being a newbie here, have read many more posts, at this point, and do see that I have to use my "inside voice", on this site.
    re: all of the recent comments regarding defense and pitching- I remember an interview that Tom Glavine gave a couple of years ago, regarding his early career, versus his '91 Braves team. He said something to the effect of, "it was such a relief, to finally get guys who could catch the ball, when it got hit. I didn't feel like I had to try and strike everyone out anymore, and I could just relax and pitch." And, we all know, that Glavine was not really a strikeout pitcher....but' 91 was the turning point. So, what WAR do we assign for that comfort??
    Maybe we malign Glavine, for being a bad pitcher before, by not believing Bill James, when he says, that "defense is only 15% of the game". Or, maybe, not being a power pitcher, he needed defense more than others. But, I DO know, for a FACT, that defensive WAR is, even now, sketchy. (and, which WAR, even?)
    There will be a day when everything is measured by numbers. But it's not here, yet. And, I believe, with the demise of the steroid era (which has so much reduced baseball to "walk-strikeout-homer") fielding will become even more important.
    We shall see.

22. Johnny Twisto Says:
    January 13th, 2011 at 1:11 am

    There will be a day when everything is measured by numbers.

    Not accurately.

23. Nash Bruce Says:
    January 13th, 2011 at 2:32 am

    I was thinking a looooong way into the future, Johnny;)

24. Keeter Says:
    January 13th, 2011 at 11:40 pm

    Measuring by numbers has always been around, it's just that now the numbers being used are changing somewhat. It's getting to the point where there are so many numbers & stats around, that you can pick-and-choose whichever stat(s) you wish to support your arguement, whatever it may be.

    Example, I don't think that Blylevin belongs in the Hall, and I used the fact he only made 2 All-Star teams, never finished higher than 3rd in a Cy Young...so in my definition, he was never a 'dominant' pitcher. However, others will bring up his 60 shutouts, WAR, and his strikeout total.

    In the end, all of these 'subjective' style statistics will end up making subjective arguements actually objective......which will keep the debates enduring !!