Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Jul 27, 2009 19:28:04 GMT -5
1. Some of these stats (like OPS+) are designed to account for things like quality of the league and home park effect, so they provide useful information in comparing players across eras. Arguing against the use of statistics in comparing players allows you to take funny potshots at nerds, but mostly it makes you sound willfully ignorant.
2. Andre Dawson was an out machine who should not make the Hall of Fame, but his inclusion would not really bother me. Dale Murphy is criminally underappreciated and should have received much more consideration over the years, though I am not sure he is ultimately deserving of the Hall. Bert Blyleven is a clear Hall of Famer in my mind (thanks largely to the statistical arguments advanced by Posnanski and others), but seems to be running out of time.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 27, 2009 19:45:44 GMT -5
Ahhh, simplistic stats bashing. I love this sort of general "I'm happy I'm ignorant" sort of thinking. It is good times.
Advanced statistics help me and lots of other people who don't revel in their ignorance to adjust to context like ballpark and era. You comment "They are being killed by the roid rage inflation and the derived stat obsession."
Which is ironic, because something like OPS+ adjusts for era, meaning Rice is normalized for his era against someone like Giles. So the derived stat actually reduces the effects of "roid rage inflation" on a voter.
A sophisticated voter who used advanced stats would never be fooled by thinking a 90s hitter is better than a 60s hitter because the raw totals are better.
Everyone uses stats. There's no way around it in a HOF discussion. Advanced metrics are simply better stats. Advanced metrics make a strong case for Bert Blyleven while stat Neanderthals are stuck on Wins and Losses.
How do you enjoy Brian Giles 136+ OPS? The same way you enjoyed Jim Rice. But the number places a context around each of the players in terms of what wins games, which is the goal.
The Hall of Fame is for the fans. But every fan is different. To pretend that people would like it if everyone got their "guy" in is silly. Everyone wants their hometown fan in -- and these nostalgia arguments could be made for two thousand players. What should go into the Hall is what wins baseball games.
It's the nostalgic arguments that keep players like Blyleven out of the Hall. The most common argument against him are things like "He wasn't a winner" and "I never thought he was all that dominant." It's advanced stats that show that guy really helped his team win -- and often more than more "dominant" pitchers.
Like I said before -- Rice is borderline. He is far from the best guy who hasn't gotten in or was even eligible. But he's also not destroying the essence of the HOF and far from the worst player they've elected. I have no real issues with him getting in aside from the process of how he got in.
Jim Rice being in doesn't end anything. But if they admitted every player the caliber of Jim Rice, the Hall wouldn't mean ANYTHING to anyone. And that fact that better players aren't in hurts its credibility, doesn't it?
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jul 27, 2009 21:12:34 GMT -5
My problem with my "willful ignorance" is that Andre Dawson, the "out machine" I remember could hit, run, and had a cannon arm.
And every one of those "silly ignorant things" say the same. 400+ homers, 300+ steals, 8 gold gloves, rookie of the year, and MVP.
But the potshot I take at nerds is that all my recollection of Dawson and all his other stats are wrong because he didn't walk enough for his OPS to be boosted 30 points. Sorry, not buying it.
You can start with stats or you can start with the vague nostalgic awesomeness factor. But you can't END with either.
You don't let a guy in just because you liked him. But you sure as hell don't let a guy in or exclude him because of his adjusted OPS.
Andre Dawson's career is not his OPS. His career is his career. And that includes everything he's done. I wouldn't mind it if people said "yeah his OPS is low, but considering the rest of his career he deserves to be in the hall" but most stat-heads use adjust OPS or adjusted ERA as the "gotcha, he's out and I'm smart" line to exclude very good ballplayers.
And note, Blyleven is not a case if advanced stats. He's 5th in Ks, 27th in wins, AND 9th in shutouts. Those are grand old, non-adjusted baseball card stats. No math requirement to know Bert got the job done.
You know, a final point as I edit this post yet again, is why are these stats "better stats." Isn't QB rating supposed to be a better stat for example? Is it willful ignorance to say Dan Marino is, in fact, better than Chad Pennington?
Jesus, I like stats but they are only useful so far. People talk about Bill James like he's found away to distill greatness down to two or three numbers. That's not how anything works. Why should baseball?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 27, 2009 21:46:40 GMT -5
I've never used one stat as a straight exclusionary practice. But I'm also not going to write a 50 page exposition on Jim Rice (though it is getting there). OPS+ is useful for two reasons -- one because all those stats you list on Dawson were done in certain contexts, and if you are going to compare him to Goose Goslin, for example, some adjustment is necessary and two, because it is a much more holistic stat. People tend to make arguments based on whatever stat gets their guy into the Hall. Ignoring Dawson's walks is just as ignorant as ignoring his home runs -- but both are in OPS+. His defense, the fact that he played CF and his baserunning are not.
(For my personal record, Dawson is not a great HOF, but he's a HOF. And a better one than Rice. There were just better options than Dawson when he was elected).
Advanced stats are better because they tend to adjust for era, ballpark, etc., -- all those things that have nothing to do with ballplayer ability. They also tend to disallow those weak arguments where people can cherry pick stats (5th in HRs, 7th in SBs, for example, while ignoring a .230 BA or something).
QB Rating is a crap stat. It's like RPI. Good advanced stats adjust for context -- QB Rating does not. Good advanced stats are regressed from what wins games -- QB Rating has some tie, but wasn't developed that way. It's a junk stat, more or less. Not awful, but certainly not holistic in nature.
Personally, I like to start from advanced stats and work from there. I'm not sure how you properly evaluate someone like Jim Rice versus other HOF OF without adjusting for the era in which he played and the ballpark he played in, etc. How do you vote for Rice over Tim Raines? Merely because Rice hit a home run you remember? How do you compare him to George Van Haltren or Jimmy Sheckard, neither of whom anyone remembers seeing play? By definition, the HOF debates are a discussion over eras. You need to be able to normalize. The Hall really hasn't -- lots of 60s pitchers and 50s hitters -- ignoring how the game changed.
As for Blyleven, the most common argument against him is his winning %. Most traditional voters believe he was just good for a really long time. Most advanced stats guys think he is an easy HOF. You may be able to see it with normal stats, but most voters haven't.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jul 27, 2009 22:50:57 GMT -5
Fair enough, but you did just have a post that listed guys with adjusted OPS of 128 or higher to lay the groundwork for discounting Rice. That's a pretty high esteem in which to hold OPS+ as a stat.
I mean, Tim Salmon? You then add that "Rice had longevity" well yeah, he did. Now I don't know what exactly is in adjusted OPS but correct me if I'm wrong it does not take into consideration that Salmon played probably 10 full seasons. If the goal is winning you have to be on the field. Jim Rice was and that counts for a lot. Rice for 150 games is better than Salmon for 90 no matter what that number says.
I'm all for adding context and it's fine as a tool. But when someone tells me Jack Morris' adjusted ERA or WHIP helps his team win more them him teabagging the Braves in the tenth inning of game 7, I get a bit upset. His WHIP's nice, but demanding the ball in the 10th inning and winning the World Series is actually baseball.
And to that point, you know I don't think ignoring walks is the same as ignoring homers. Homers are really cool. Let's face it, without Babe Ruth or McGwire vs Sosa baseball is about as popular as the XFL. Normalizing stats aside, the game's popularity is owed more to the long ball than to ball four. So in that way, it's really not a stretch to count one more than the other. It's not an end all stat, but in the grand scheme of things, I'll take Earl Weaver's best play even in this case.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on Jul 27, 2009 23:42:06 GMT -5
Like I said before -- Rice is borderline. He is far from the best guy who hasn't gotten in or was even eligible. But he's also not destroying the essence of the HOF and far from the worst player they've elected. I have no real issues with him getting in aside from the process of how he got in. Jim Rice borderline got in. It took 15 years and he barely made it in. It's not like he was massively voted in on first ballot - it was an eventual process - which may get Blyleven in. As for Brian Giles, I don't think a wife-beating 2-time All Star who finished nowhere near MVP in any year has any chance at the Hall, stats or no stats.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 28, 2009 1:22:41 GMT -5
TC, regardless of what you think of him personally, I think Giles was probably a better player than Rice when you look at the whole player, steroid-possibility excepted. Things like MVP voting are useless because he wasn't any worse for being on a bad team.
Giga, as for OPS+, it's a really good place to start. So is ERA+. Morris' HOF campaign shouldn't rest on one freaking game. Put an exhibit on the game in the Hall, not a good but not great pitcher.
As for Tim Salmon and Rice, it's extremely comparable. Rice is better than Salmon, but its mostly in longevity. A couple more seasons of Tim Salmon, would that make him a HOF? I get you all have wonderful memories of Rice, but he simply wasn't all that special.
You don't like Tim Salmon? What about Jim Edmonds? Still, less PAs, but better hitting stats and a better fielder at a tougher position? What about Larry Walker? Fantastic fielder, great baserunner, great hitter, just 1,000 less PAs. Is Larry Walker anywhere near your HOF? What about Jack Clark or Will Clark? John Olerud or Fred McGriff?
I got the whole home runs are better than walks. I -- and everyone else agrees. It isn't the walks -- its the absence of outs. Rice isn't hitting more home runs than any of these guys. Not substantially in most cases. The difference is that when Rice was getting out, Larry Walker or someone else often wasn't.
And an offense gets 27 outs. That's the currency. Don't commit outs, you get to keep playing. In other sports, after you score, you give back the ball. In baseball, you have to screw up to give it back. In those seven hundred instances, when Rice was ending an inning, there was a runner on base and another guy got to bat in another situation.
I want my HOF full of people who helped their team win the most. That's kind of the point of the game.
|
|
AvantGuardHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
"It was when I found out I could make mistakes that I knew I was on to something."
Posts: 1,484
|
Post by AvantGuardHoya on Jul 28, 2009 5:14:51 GMT -5
Aight, SF, Rice is not your idea of a HOF. Apparently his playing in Fenway is part of why. You being the stat geek, can you dredge up his Fenway vs. road hitting data. I'd be curious to know what you find.
|
|
HoyaFanNY
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Never throw to the venus on a spider 3 Y banana!
Posts: 4,995
|
Post by HoyaFanNY on Jul 28, 2009 6:00:09 GMT -5
i stopped reading when he mentioned tim salmon and brian giles in the same category as rice. completely asenine. the lame ballpark excuse with rice is the same as saying players like giles and salmon benefited from thinned out pitching due to expansion, juiced balls, POD's, and fancy new bread boxes they call newer ballparks.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jul 28, 2009 6:46:31 GMT -5
TC, regardless of what you think of him personally, I think Giles was probably a better player than Rice when you look at the whole player, steroid-possibility excepted. Things like MVP voting are useless because he wasn't any worse for being on a bad team. Giga, as for OPS+, it's a really good place to start. So is ERA+. Morris' HOF campaign shouldn't rest on one freaking game. Put an exhibit on the game in the Hall, not a good but not great pitcher. As for Tim Salmon and Rice, it's extremely comparable. Rice is better than Salmon, but its mostly in longevity. A couple more seasons of Tim Salmon, would that make him a HOF? I get you all have wonderful memories of Rice, but he simply wasn't all that special. You don't like Tim Salmon? What about Jim Edmonds? Still, less PAs, but better hitting stats and a better fielder at a tougher position? What about Larry Walker? Fantastic fielder, great baserunner, great hitter, just 1,000 less PAs. Is Larry Walker anywhere near your HOF? What about Jack Clark or Will Clark? John Olerud or Fred McGriff? I got the whole home runs are better than walks. I -- and everyone else agrees. It isn't the walks -- its the absence of outs. Rice isn't hitting more home runs than any of these guys. Not substantially in most cases. The difference is that when Rice was getting out, Larry Walker or someone else often wasn't. And an offense gets 27 outs. That's the currency. Don't commit outs, you get to keep playing. In other sports, after you score, you give back the ball. In baseball, you have to screw up to give it back. In those seven hundred instances, when Rice was ending an inning, there was a runner on base and another guy got to bat in another situation. I want my HOF full of people who helped their team win the most. That's kind of the point of the game. The difference between Brian Giles hitting for his agent by the end of July and Jack Morris ripping away two World Series with fantastic performances for both the Tigers and Twins is a different definition of winning. I mean good eye, Brian on that absent out with the Pirates down 14-7, but that's not what makes a hall of famer. This "Less PAs" is not just a statistical aside. Longevity MATTERS. It's sports. Wanna nurse that hammy so you have enough stretch to poke that single to right field in game 141 when we're 11 games out? Well nurse away bozo, but you're not helping your Hall of Fame chances with me. Again, what gets your agent more money in arbitration is not what puts you in the Hall. Ripken, Rose, Yount...consistently derided by statheads. But we have memories of those guys because they bit down hard and went out to play ball even when injured, OPS be damned. Salmon's shorter career is a negative because he wasn't Koufax, he was a very good player who only played in top condition. If you want to compare guys with fewer PAs, take the best PAs from the other guy and leave off the worst 1000. That should scale back the fact that they spent the day on the field and not in the ice bath.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on Jul 28, 2009 7:47:27 GMT -5
TC, regardless of what you think of him personally, I think Giles was probably a better player than Rice when you look at the whole player, steroid-possibility excepted. Things like MVP voting are useless because he wasn't any worse for being on a bad team. "Steroid-possibility excepted?" Please, he's one of the poster children. “People want to talk stuff about our offense. They move the fences back, they take steroids away, what do you expect?” - Brian Giles You can point to Giles' crazy OPS+ all you want, but he never led the league in a major category, he never was considered one of the five best players in the league, he made the AS game only twice, and never sniffed an MVP. How you get that OPS+ matters, which is why Ken Griffey Jr. - who has a 137 OPS+ vs. Giles 136 OPS+ - will make the hall and Giles will never be in the conversation. Those are Bobby Bonilla qualifications, not HOF qualifications. He's the prime example of why steroid-era numbers and benchmarks have to be treated very differently.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on Jul 28, 2009 8:07:20 GMT -5
As for Tim Salmon and Rice, it's extremely comparable. Rice is better than Salmon, but its mostly in longevity. A couple more seasons of Tim Salmon, would that make him a HOF? I get you all have wonderful memories of Rice, but he simply wasn't all that special. You don't like Tim Salmon? What about Jim Edmonds? Still, less PAs, but better hitting stats and a better fielder at a tougher position? What about Larry Walker? Fantastic fielder, great baserunner, great hitter, just 1,000 less PAs. Is Larry Walker anywhere near your HOF? What about Jack Clark or Will Clark? John Olerud or Fred McGriff? I think of the guys you list, McGriff and Edmonds will likely have cases for the HOF.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 28, 2009 8:59:58 GMT -5
i stopped reading when he mentioned tim salmon and brian giles in the same category as rice. completely asenine. That's not an argument. It's kind of the opposite. Something like OPS+ is adjusted for ballpark and era and juiced balls and even PEDs if you think most everyone was taking. It is how much better you were than your contemporaries, adjusted for ballpark.
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Jul 28, 2009 9:02:42 GMT -5
Aight, SF, Rice is not your idea of a HOF. Apparently his playing in Fenway is part of why. You being the stat geek, can you dredge up his Fenway vs. road hitting data. I'd be curious to know what you find. Found this somewhere: Jim Rice, Career .320/.374/.546 .920 OPS at home .277/.330/.459 .784 OPS on the road Pretty significant, wouldn't you say? Fenway is no longer such an extreme hitters park- wind patterns changed when they built up the suites behind home plate in the late 80's. But during almost all of Rice's career it was one of the most hitter friendly parks in the league, especially for a RH pull-hitter.
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Jul 28, 2009 9:05:06 GMT -5
And Brian Giles loses in my book for refusing a trade to play for a contender last year. Not that anyone would take him seriously as a HOF candidate anyway.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 28, 2009 9:09:48 GMT -5
The difference between Brian Giles hitting for his agent by the end of July and Jack Morris ripping away two World Series with fantastic performances for both the Tigers and Twins is a different definition of winning. I mean good eye, Brian on that absent out with the Pirates down 14-7, but that's not what makes a hall of famer. Ugh. Yes, Morris' playoff performances matter, but not compared to the sum total of his career. Not to me, at least. As for bashing Giles, the guy had plenty of pressure ABs. Just never good teammates. There's a whole lot of evidence out there that says that almost all major leaguers possess very similar "clutch" skills -- and that only a few might be "chokers" or "clutch performers" on more than an almost random basis. It's not Giles' fault that his teams sucked and there's no evidence to say he would've played worse in higher pressure situations. I almost agree. I'm generally a peak guy when it comes to the Hall and I'm perfectly willing to give credit for 1. Playing more within a season 2. Cutting off crappy season that drag down career rate stats (not the worst 1000 PAs, but the worst seasons of PAs). Rice had great consistency, posting OPS+ between 112 and 157 (if I cut off the tail) and often playing 150+ games. Not cutting off any of Giles' tail, he's posted between 107 and 177 and played more often than you think. Once I get a chance I'll check, but it looks like similar # of games per year. His disadvantage in PAs is more or less the fact that he played behind Belle, Ramirez and Lofton in Cleveland, all of whom also have strong HOF cases and were in their prime (or Manny Ramirez).
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 28, 2009 9:15:47 GMT -5
TC, regardless of what you think of him personally, I think Giles was probably a better player than Rice when you look at the whole player, steroid-possibility excepted. Things like MVP voting are useless because he wasn't any worse for being on a bad team. "Steroid-possibility excepted?" Please, he's one of the poster children. “People want to talk stuff about our offense. They move the fences back, they take steroids away, what do you expect?” - Brian Giles You can point to Giles' crazy OPS+ all you want, but he never led the league in a major category, he never was considered one of the five best players in the league, he made the AS game only twice, and never sniffed an MVP. How you get that OPS+ matters, which is why Ken Griffey Jr. - who has a 137 OPS+ vs. Giles 136 OPS+ - will make the hall and Giles will never be in the conversation. Those are Bobby Bonilla qualifications, not HOF qualifications. He's the prime example of why steroid-era numbers and benchmarks have to be treated very differently. Certainly there's suspicion of Giles, and while I'm not a huge fan of conviction without evidence, I get that argument for him. Performance-wise, though, if he there were no suspicion, where is he versus Rice? How Giles was considered, etc., excuse me if I ignore All-Star voting and MVP voting. Hardly an accurate or good measure anymore. But I don't think he was ever the best player in the league. Jim Rice wasn't either. As for Griffey, there's a huge difference in the HOF credentials of a GG-CF versus a very good fielding RF -- a similar OPS+ means the CF was a better player. If Rice played CF, I wouldn't be having this argument. As for Bonilla, he never peaked anywhere near Giles, doesn't have the career stats of Giles, was an awful defender at any position and a clumsy baserunner. Brian Giles is much more comarable to Jim Rice than Bonilla is to any of these guys. Nice hitter for a while.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on Jul 28, 2009 9:35:32 GMT -5
His disadvantage in PAs is more or less the fact that he played behind Belle, Ramirez and Lofton in Cleveland, all of whom also have strong HOF cases and were in their prime (or Manny Ramirez). Didn't you kind of just defeat your own "what if you grew up rooting for Brian Giles' team" argument? Cleveland has a laundry list of players from those teams that will make the HOF (Eddie Murray being the first).
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 28, 2009 10:07:29 GMT -5
His disadvantage in PAs is more or less the fact that he played behind Belle, Ramirez and Lofton in Cleveland, all of whom also have strong HOF cases and were in their prime (or Manny Ramirez). Didn't you kind of just defeat your own "what if you grew up rooting for Brian Giles' team" argument? Cleveland has a laundry list of players from those teams that will make the HOF (Eddie Murray being the first). I was more thinking of Pittsburgh fans. And I'm not trying to make Brian Giles into a HOF. My point is that he's not -- and that Jim Rice isn't any better.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 28, 2009 10:18:55 GMT -5
On the other hand, historically speaking, about 10% of all PAs at any one time are taken by a HOF.
So from a hitter perspective, on average, one player in every lineup is going to be a HOF if standards don't change. That includes people on their last legs and players just starting, but it seems like a lot, doesn't it?
|
|