SDMB HoF chatter

The Game Room
81

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
I don’t think what Mantle did really enters the equation, it is about if Maris was helped.

As to Ruth, I don’t agree with your numbers. Gehrig came into his own in 1926 starting his ridiculously great streak of 13 seasons with 100+ RBIs. Ruth had had an off year in 1925 but starting with 1926 he had six incredible years of Run production and his BA stayed high. Compared to his run production in the 4 years prior, it looks like Gehrig may have helped Ruth. I think you might need to look it over more carefully.
[/QUOTE]

OK, let’s look both issues over carefully:

Ruth scored 51, 53, 29, 55, and 45 Win Shares from 1920-1924, an average of 46.6 Win shares per year–all without Gehrig. In 1925, Gehrig played part of the year, and Ruth missed part of the year with his bellyache. Gehrig began batting the Yankee lineup on a regular basis in 1926. Ruth’s Win Shares in the five years starting with 1926 are 45, 45, 45, 32 and 38. In other words, with Gehrig’s protection, Ruth was unable to achieve in any one year his average performance of his previous 5 full seasons. Color me unimpressed by the power of protection. (And remember this was YOUR chosen example, not mine.)

And of course Mantle figures in here, it’s just that his performance in 1960 and 1961 argues against your position. He was batting ahead of Maris in 1960–Maris was providing protection for him. Your argument demands that if they switched batting holes in 1961, then Mantle would get worse and Maris would get better. But that simply didn’t happen. They both got better (and they were both MVP-type power hitters both years–again, remember this is your example, but it doesn’t show what you would have to argue it does show.) You’re arguing that whoever went to the #4-hole from the 3-hole, and gave up all the benefits of first-rate protection would suffer. But if Mantle’s 1961 was suffering, then please bring that kind of suffering on for me. His year is highly inconvenient for your argument, especially since you’re the one citing this as a great proof of protection (while denying hundreds of valid and well-documented cases) but it looks as if this dog is not hunting.

[obi-wan] These are not the stats you’re looking for. Move along [/obi-wan]

82

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
OK, let’s look both issues over carefully:

Ruth scored 51, 53, 29, 55, and 45 Win Shares from 1920-1924, an average of 46.6 Win shares per year–all without Gehrig. In 1925, Gehrig played part of the year, and Ruth missed part of the year with his bellyache. Gehrig began batting the Yankee lineup on a regular basis in 1926. Ruth’s Win Shares in the five years starting with 1926 are 45, 45, 45, 32 and 38. In other words, with Gehrig’s protection, Ruth was unable to achieve in any one year his average performance of his previous 5 full seasons. Color me unimpressed by the power of protection. (And remember this was YOUR chosen example, not mine.)

And of course Mantle figures in here, it’s just that his performance in 1960 and 1961 argues against your position. He was batting ahead of Maris in 1960–Maris was providing protection for him. Your argument demands that if they switched batting holes in 1961, then Mantle would get worse and Maris would get better. But that simply didn’t happen. They both got better (and they were both MVP-type power hitters both years–again, remember this is your example, but it doesn’t show what you would have to argue it does show.) You’re arguing that whoever went to the #4-hole from the 3-hole, and gave up all the benefits of first-rate protection would suffer. But if Mantle’s 1961 was suffering, then please bring that kind of suffering on for me. His year is highly inconvenient for your argument, especially since you’re the one citing this as a great proof of protection (while denying hundreds of valid and well-documented cases) but it looks as if this dog is not hunting.

[/QUOTE]

The Win Share argument is worthless in this case as it is indeed a share. So adding Gehrig’s huge numbers would tend to decrease the Win Share of the other players. Look at run production and more individual stats and I think we see a different story.

Mantle was a great hitter, Maris was a power hitter. Pitchers in 1960 chanced pitching around Mantle to get to Maris. In 1961 they pitched to Maris as Mantle was far less likely to make an out and they had similar power.

I still don’t see Mantle’s numbers in 1961 as very relevant to the discussion of if he protected Maris.

83

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
The Win Share argument is worthless in this case as it is indeed a share. So adding Gehrig’s huge numbers would tend to decrease the Win Share of the other players. Look at run production and more individual stats and I think we see a different story.

Mantle was a great hitter, Maris was a power hitter. Pitchers in 1960 chanced pitching around Mantle to get to Maris. In 1961 they pitched to Maris as Mantle was far less likely to make an out and they had similar power.

I still don’t see Mantle’s numbers in 1961 as very relevant to the discussion of if he protected Maris.
[/QUOTE]

You’re not understanding how Win Share works. They are designed to isolate each player’s value, and specifically NOT to be affected by how a player’s teammates perform. James spends several pages showing how this works, and no one who reads them can challenge them (without grossly misinterpreting what James writes.) Would you like to borrow my copy? I’ll be glad to drop it off on my next trip to the Shore. You’ll like it–he writes in great detail about some Yankee teams, and his chapter “Good Teams, Bad Teams” explains how hard he strove to create a system that would be fair to players’ performances whether they played with accomplished teammates or horribly inept ones. It’s pp. 168-173.

84

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
The Win Share argument is worthless in this case as it is indeed a share. So adding Gehrig’s huge numbers would tend to decrease the Win Share of the other players.
[/QUOTE]

**That is not the way Win Shares works. ** Adding Gehrig’s huge numbers, assuming Ruth continues to play just as well, would simply add more wins to the Yankees, and therefore more Win Shares.

That said, forget Win Shares. Just look at the raw numbers.

I’m not sure you’re looking at the same Babe Ruth I am. In 1920 he batted .376 and hit 54 homers. in 1921 he batted .378 and hit 59 homers and had his career highs in runs scored and RBI. In 1922 he was hurt, and then in 1923 he batted .393. In 1924 another magnificent season.

Going by most measurements, Ruth had his best years before Gehrig. Highest career OPS+ figures were all pre-Gehrig; 1920 his best, 2921 and 1923 tied for second. His 1920 is arguably the greatest hitting season any player has ever had - only Barry Bonds has ever exceeded that OPS+. And in terms of run production he never scored or drove in more than in 1921. His 60-homer season wasn’t actually as good as those years.

Interestingly, in terms of “Best single season OPS+,” it’s all Ruth and Bonds; Bonds has the top 3, Ruth the next 3. The two Ted Williamses, then Bonds again, then two more Ruths. Mickey Mantle is the highest post-1900 player not named Ruth, Bonds, or Williams.

85

I surrender, if you don’t see a difference in his run production in the 4 years prior to Gehrig vs the 4 years after. I have no hope in this debate.

86

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
I surrender, if you don’t see a difference in his run production in the 4 years prior to Gehrig vs the 4 years after. I have no hope in this debate.
[/QUOTE]

Now you’ve made me want to look up the specifics! Here they are, Ruth in his 1920-1924 seasons (pre-Gehrig) and 1926-1930 (post-Gehrig):

1920: .376/.533/.849, 54 HR, 158 Runs, 137 RBI
1921: .378/.512/.846, 59 HR, 177 Runs, 171 RBI
1922: .315/.434/.672, 35 HR, 94 Runs, 99 RBI (note: only 406 AB, due to a supsension for barnstorming)
1923: .393/.545/.764, 41 HR, 151 Runs, 131 RBI
1924: .378/.513/.739, 46 HR, 143 Runs, 121 RBI

1926: .372/.516/.737, 47 HR, 139 Runs, 150 RBI
1927: .356/.486/.772, 60 HR, 158 Runs, 164 RBI
1928: .323/.463/.709, 54 HR, 163 Runs, 142 RBI
1929: .345/.430/.697, 46 HR, 121 Runs, 154 RBI
1930: .359/.493/.732, 49 HR, 150 Runs, 153 RBI

… I confess I’m not really seeing the difference. His RBI went up a bit post-Gehrig, though his SLG and OBP were both down a little bit. His HR and Runs scored appear pretty much the same. Can you elucidate a bit on what significant increase in run production you see?

87

Inducted so far, after three rounds:

Catchers:

Gary Carter
Johnny Bench
Yogi Berra
Carlton Fisk
Roy Campanella
Bill Dickey
Mickey Cochrane
Mike Piazza
Ivan Rodriguez
Gabby Hartnett
First Basemen:

Lou Gehrig
Jimmie Foxx
Hank Greenberg
Willie McCovey
Johnny Mize
Harmon Killebrew
Frank Thomas
Eddie Murray
George Sisler
Jeff Bagwell
Second Basemen:

Rogers Hornsby
Ryne Sandberg
Jackie Robinson
Joe Morgan
Rod Carew
Eddie Collins
Charlie Gehringer
Napoleon Lajoie
Roberto Alomar
Frankie Frisch
Craig Biggio

88

[QUOTE=Parthol]
Now you’ve made me want to look up the specifics! Here they are, Ruth in his 1920-1924 seasons (pre-Gehrig) and 1926-1930 (post-Gehrig):

1920: .376/.533/.849, 54 HR, 158 Runs, 137 RBI
1921: .378/.512/.846, 59 HR, 177 Runs, 171 RBI
1922: .315/.434/.672, 35 HR, 94 Runs, 99 RBI (note: only 406 AB, due to a supsension for barnstorming)
1923: .393/.545/.764, 41 HR, 151 Runs, 131 RBI
1924: .378/.513/.739, 46 HR, 143 Runs, 121 RBI

1926: .372/.516/.737, 47 HR, 139 Runs, 150 RBI
1927: .356/.486/.772, 60 HR, 158 Runs, 164 RBI
1928: .323/.463/.709, 54 HR, 163 Runs, 142 RBI
1929: .345/.430/.697, 46 HR, 121 Runs, 154 RBI
1930: .359/.493/.732, 49 HR, 150 Runs, 153 RBI

… I confess I’m not really seeing the difference. His RBI went up a bit post-Gehrig, though his SLG and OBP were both down a little bit. His HR and Runs scored appear pretty much the same. Can you elucidate a bit on what significant increase in run production you see?
[/QUOTE]

Part of WhatExit?'s problem with your numbers, I suspect, has to do with your cherry-picking of the numbers to exclude 1925, a poor pre-Gehrig year for Ruth. Why exclude that year, you poopy stathead: just because it weakens your case? You, sir, are a liar and a statistician.

Never mind the fact that Gehrig’s streak began in 1925, and so you’d have to include it as a Gehrig/Ruth season if you were going to include it at all, and that you’re actually bending over backwards to be fair to WhatExit?'s argument.

I think we have to give the guy a break here: it takes a while for people to come around to appreciating James’ approach. When you spend your whole life believing in certain truths, it’s often very hard to realize that you can’t explain them. They’re simply true. And the harder people try to convince you otherwise, the more you become convinced that this is all a giant scam. You can’t quite articulate what the scammers’ motives might be (they’re all reasonable enough people, who will patiently discuss the examples that you keep bringing up, and showing you why they don’t apply, or how they actually disprove your case) but the fact remains that if you accept even a part of their argument, you’ll have to rethink your entire system of understanding, and that’s very hard to do.

But WhatExit? is a smart, open-minded, and reasonable guy, who either will read James’ work or he won’t. I’m guessing he’ll read it, and get it, and
come around, at least to the point of arguing with what James actually writes.

89

In 1925 Ruth was hampered by various health problems (well-documented by the media of the time), which induced him to get into shape for the 1926 season.

90

White Flag, I quit. You win the debate. Let’s move on please.

91

Rick are you limiting pitchers to 10.? Or lefty,righty,relief?

92

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Rick are you limiting pitchers to 10.? Or lefty,righty,relief?
[/QUOTE]

We’ll be electing 50 pitchers to start, in increments of 10. There won’t be any limitations on who you can vote for; basically, you’ll be asked to vote for ten pitchers, and then we’ll have another round where you vote for ten more, and so on.

93

This is actually a response to the discussion going on in the shortstops thread about evaluating turn-of-the-century ballplayers. I’m posting here because RickJay, the OP, has requested a few times now that side-discussions not pollute the voting threads.

I find myself in the weird (to me) position of defending gonzomax, even though our philosophies and intellectual approaches seem completely different. I’m going to defend his position here on two counts:

  1. Generally, the earlier a player’s career, the smaller the pool of humanity was for selecting his competition. The best player in 1885 was competing against a much smaller set of players than the best player in 1985. It’s much harder in modern times for any player to stick himself on the far right of the bell curve. (This can be best exhibited with an absurd example: imagine that from 1855 to 1870 there was a baseball league with two teams, and one player on one team led the “league” in every statistical category and compiled crazily good numbers. Could you argue with confidence that he belongs in the Hall of Fame? Of course not.) The point is, I think it’s perfectly fair to give more modern superstars a bump when comparing them to the players of the 1890’s, even though it’s no fault of the older players.

  2. I may disagree with gonzo’s position that olde tyme ballplayers can’t be accurately evaluated, but it’s not an indefensible position, and I don’t think he deserves snark and veiled insults in a forum like this. Just because someone doesn’t choose to spend the hours it would take converting across statistical eras, and reading multiple 90-year-old newspaper articles, shouldn’t disqualify them from voting. If someone wants to start a separate HoF voting thread with an entrance exam, go right ahead! :slight_smile:

On a semi-related point, regarding Long vs. Wagner: I bet I could find players and writers, right now, who would swear up and down that Omar Vizquel has been a more valuable shortstop than A-Rod, and that Derek Jeter has been a fantastic fielder for his whole career. I’m unconvinced, therefore, by Clark Griffith’s I-don’t-see-any-forest-but-this-tree-sure-is-pretty analysis. I’m sure that Long was a fine player, maybe even a great one, but I’ll take Honus Wagner’s 150 OPS+ over Herman Long’s 94 OPS+, over about 3000 more plate appearances, and strongly similar defensive stats (admittedly sketchy, but by accounts of the time, Honus was no slouch with the glove). My default position is to believe the objective over the subjective, where the two are at odds.

94

No player from the earlier 20th century played the game at a level that it is played at today. In fact, I kind of doubt that many players 30 years ago in fact played at the games’ current level. The talent level in every sport is continuely rising. Just look how many world records are broken every year in sports where such things are measurable. It is silly to have a hall of fame that only allows players from recent years in, so I think you need to do it on a relative scale. Measuring the Negro leagues and 1800’s will still be difficult, but we should be able to handle all of the 20th century. We need to find the players from each era who were best at scoring and preventing runs amongst their peers. Doesn’t matter if they did it by hiting 400, hitting 50 home-runs, or being a defensive wiz.

95

i believe no amount of time and analysis will do the job. I think the turn of the century with 400 hitters all over , single digit homerun titles and incredible pitching wins is impossible to relate. I see the difference big enough that it actually is not the same game.
What will I do with Cy Young and Lefty Grove? I do not know. They were outstanding compared to the players of their time. But 511 wins is impossible now. Not because we do not have great pitchers but because it is a different game. So different that a pitcher is acclaimed when he gets half way to his totals. Does that imply Young was twice as good as Clemens. Does that suggest Clemens would not have won 400 or so games in 1900. I do not know. I would absolutely be wild stabbing to come up with an answer.

96

[QUOTE=Parthol]
This is actually a response to the discussion going on in the shortstops thread about evaluating turn-of-the-century ballplayers. I’m posting here because RickJay, the OP, has requested a few times now that side-discussions not pollute the voting threads.

I find myself in the weird (to me) position of defending gonzomax, even though our philosophies and intellectual approaches seem completely different. I’m going to defend his position here on two counts:

  1. Generally, the earlier a player’s career, the smaller the pool of humanity was for selecting his competition. The best player in 1885 was competing against a much smaller set of players than the best player in 1985. It’s much harder in modern times for any player to stick himself on the far right of the bell curve. (This can be best exhibited with an absurd example: imagine that from 1855 to 1870 there was a baseball league with two teams, and one player on one team led the “league” in every statistical category and compiled crazily good numbers. Could you argue with confidence that he belongs in the Hall of Fame? Of course not.) The point is, I think it’s perfectly fair to give more modern superstars a bump when comparing them to the players of the 1890’s, even though it’s no fault of the older players.

  2. I may disagree with gonzo’s position that olde tyme ballplayers can’t be accurately evaluated, but it’s not an indefensible position, and I don’t think he deserves snark and veiled insults in a forum like this. Just because someone doesn’t choose to spend the hours it would take converting across statistical eras, and reading multiple 90-year-old newspaper articles, shouldn’t disqualify them from voting. If someone wants to start a separate HoF voting thread with an entrance exam, go right ahead! :slight_smile:

On a semi-related point, regarding Long vs. Wagner: I bet I could find players and writers, right now, who would swear up and down that Omar Vizquel has been a more valuable shortstop than A-Rod, and that Derek Jeter has been a fantastic fielder for his whole career. I’m unconvinced, therefore, by Clark Griffith’s I-don’t-see-any-forest-but-this-tree-sure-is-pretty analysis. I’m sure that Long was a fine player, maybe even a great one, but I’ll take Honus Wagner’s 150 OPS+ over Herman Long’s 94 OPS+, over about 3000 more plate appearances, and strongly similar defensive stats (admittedly sketchy, but by accounts of the time, Honus was no slouch with the glove). My default position is to believe the objective over the subjective, where the two are at odds.
[/QUOTE]

A bump is one thing, but to just decide on a cut-off date before which there are no qualified candidates? Because relying on anything outside of your own memory is hard?

I didn’t claim Clark Griffith should be relied upon blindly. What I wrote was that he was obviously qualified to make a critical judgment (for which a random player or writer who published an article claiming that Omar Vizquel is more valuable than A-Rod would get considerable grief, that Griffith did not get) and if Long was the second best shortstop of the 1890s, or the fifth best, that should count for something, which it isn’t counting for among those people who are wiling to cast one ballot in 100 for a pre-1900 ballplayer.

And I will take you up on the offer to start a more rigorous SDMB HoF. I’m going to do it old school!

97

I believe this whole thing is just prr’s way of showing how much smarter he is than everyone else. He’s been criticizing and correcting RickJay’s method of doing the voting since the very first thread, and I’m going to choose to ignore him and let him simmer in the juices of his own brilliance all by himself.

98

.400 hitters from “the turn of the century” – 1901, which is generally defined as the beginning of major league baseball as we know it, what with the merger of the AL and the NL – onwards:

Nap Lajoie (1901)
Joe Jackson (1911)
Ty Cobb (1911)
Ty Cobb (1912)
George Sisler (1920)
George Sisler (1922)
Ty Cobb (1922)
Rogers Hornsby (1922)
Harry Heilman (1923)
Rogers Hornsby (1924)
Rogers Hornsby (1925)
Bill Terry (1930)
Ted Williams (1941)

So we’ve got exactly one .400 hitter from 1901 through 1910, and only 8 players who’ve ever batted .400 in a full season since the AL/NL merger.

“All over”? Really?

99

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
A bump is one thing, but to just decide on a cut-off date before which there are no qualified candidates? Because relying on anything outside of your own memory is hard?
[/QUOTE]

I think you have a good point to make. But let’s bear two things in mind:

  1. The current vote leader among shortstops is a guy who started his career in 1897 for the Louisville Colonels. The dead ball era also contributed two of the eleven second basemen chosen in the last round. So it’s not like dead ball era players aren’t getting elected; the opinions of one person are not going to swing the matter.

  2. It’s not out of the bounds of reality to think that perhaps there were no shortstops before Honus Wagner qualified to be in the top ten. Going by common universal metrics George Davis isn’t really discernable from Barry Larkin, Derek Jeter, Alan Trammell or any number of modern shortstops who will be fighting for the tenth spot; in the dead ball era, Wagner towers over all. (Actually, he towers over all shortstops, period, for all of baseball history.) The great majority of major league baseball that has ever been played has taken place since Honus Wagner’s rookie season. We are going to have holes in periods of history for all positions - I can’t think of any third basemen of the 50s who could match the amazing glut of great third basemen in the 60s and 70s.

Please, please, please don’t do this. I’m honestly asking on bended knee here. It’s a horrible idea.

If we have two competing board Halls of Fame they’ll just bore everyone and we’ll get limited, if any, participation in both, and both will wither on the vine without enough votes to mean anything. I’m asking you, as a personal favour from one baseball fan to another, to allow this process to complete itself before setting up a competing process that will unquestionably kill both. If you want to give it a go later on when this has run its course that’s fine with me and I’ll happily vote in it, but please do not kill this process out of spite. People are having fun with it and there’s no reason to turn this into a board battle.

100

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
And I will take you up on the offer to start a more rigorous SDMB HoF. I’m going to do it old school!
[/QUOTE]

I will second RickJay’s plea. Please let this HOF complete before you start the more rigorous one. That should work out better and be more enjoyable for all involved.
Frank, this is baseball and baseball debate by baseball geeks. **PRR ** is raising valid concerns. This is coming from someone who appears to stand alone in not trusting The Saintly Bill James’s new stats. You post actually sounds a little petty. I am not sure if you meant it to be, but it does sound that way.