Sons of Sam Horn > SoSH Hall of Fame thread IV: 2011 The Future!

Razor Shines

Feb 21 2007, 01:37 PM

QUOTE (Vermonter At Large @ Feb 21 2007, 05:58 AM)

I feel the same way about Palmeiro, who has also appeared on a few ballots with very little discussion except for swany's little blurb on his WARP. Palmeiro put up some good cumulative numbers in a total hitter's era, playing his entire career in hitter-friendly ballparks, yet he only had four AS appearances. This tells me that although his WARP was good, his Wins Above Really Good Players was either not very good or that he was undervalued. Even discounting the fact that he most likely trained for most of his career using illegal PED's, I do not see him as being a clear-cut HOFer. If someone feels differently, please discuss.

I voted for Palmeiro, and without any hesitation. Statistically, he certainly belongs - Delta Force summed it up nicely a few posts above mine.

Regarding the failed steroid test - this only proves that 1) he used them in 2005, and 2) he's not very bright. It does not prove that he used them in the prime of his career, and we have no proof that any hitters were clean before testing began a few years ago. For this reason, I don't really take PEDs into heavy consideration when making my vote.

Only 4 All-Star games? That speaks more to the large number of excellent first basemen in the late 80's-1990's, IMO.

Regarding Larry Walker - I retracted my vote for him, but I can see the argument for him. He was more than just a Coors bat - he was a good baserunner and good fielder before he got too big late in his career, and he was a good contact hitter (averaged 72 Ks per season) with good plate discipline. Coors added to his gaudy numbers, but Walker was a complete player for a long time.

Perhaps the heaviest 5-tool player of all time?

mclusky

Feb 21 2007, 02:07 PM

QUOTE (Razor Shines @ Feb 21 2007, 01:37 PM)

I voted for Palmeiro, and without any hesitation. Statistically, he certainly belongs - Delta Force summed it up nicely a few posts above mine.

Yeah, take Don Mattingly, times him by 1.5 and you've got Palmeiro. He had almost a thousand more career hits and 300 more dingers, which pretty much make up for any adjustment you make for the high-run era he played in.

ScotianSox

Feb 21 2007, 02:17 PM

Here's Larry Walkers career EQA by season. You be the judge whether his EQA is what you'd want from a HoFer but I don't think the Coors boost is a big concern..I have highlighted his years with the Rockies.

swany

Feb 21 2007, 05:57 PM

On Palmeiro I think Delta has covered the numbers better than I could have, I would just add one more thing. Everyone seems to like the high peek guys over quality longevity guys. There is nothing wrong with that, I love the players that absolutely dominated for a few years too. I just think we are sometimes too quick to dismiss the guys that were very good for a very long time. Palmeiro was a very good player for almost all of his 20 seasons and accumulated some big numbers because of it. Health and aging well are baseball skills and as such I think Palmeiro should be rewarded for staying healthy and productive through his 30's when so many guys like Sammy Sosa, Jeff Bagwell and Mark McGwire couldn't.
As far as the 'roids go, he was an idiot and a dink for the way he handled the whole issue. Even so, being an idiot and a dink alone has been overlooked several times before on ballots and I don't think that should change here. Specific to his performance on the field, I think it is impossible to know what affect steroids had on his career. We don't know how long he juiced, we don't know how much juicing helped him, we don't know how many of the pitchers he faced were juiced and we don't know how many of the contemporaries that we are measuring him against were juiced. Maybe when (if) the Mitchell investigation wraps up we'll know more or maybe in 2011 we'll have a better perspective on the whole era, but until then I am very reluctant to hold the weight of the whole steriod era against him just because he was dumb enough to get caught.

LahoudOrBillyC

Feb 21 2007, 06:14 PM

2011 Ballot

Jeff Bagwell
Albert Belle
Kevin Brown
Will Clark
David Cone
Andre Dawson
Fred McGriff
Don Mattingly
Rafael Palmeiro
Larry Walker

Vermonter At Large

Feb 21 2007, 06:42 PM

Some excellent, excellent points guys. Thanks for digging in and putting this stuff together.

I really like Scotian's point about hitting in Coors 81 games possibly affecting hitters adversely on the road. I have always thought that Fenway hurt some right-handed hitters this way, and I think that the Coors effect may be even stronger and more widespread. Great point on that. I smell an analysis in here somewhere ...

On the point of Palmeiro's AS selections, there were a couple of replies that mentioned there having been an awful lot of good-hitting first basemen in the era. I am not sure that I buy that - in fact I am quite sure that I don't and alluded to this in my critique on Bagwell earlier. I expect that the weight-training era creates the illusion that there are an awful lot more good hitters at various positions, but again I do not believe that any current correction for park or era goes far enough in equalizing their stats. If Palmeiro was only a top-three first baseman in four seasons in the major leagues, he just wasn't as good as his numbers portray (yes, I know there are other considerations for AS selection besides being a top-3 guy).

For the record, I believe that Palmeiro probably used PED's for most of his career, but I don't think that detracts from him in any way. I also believe that a helluva a lot more ballplayers in the 1910's "laid down" at the behest of gamblers than the dozen or so who got caught doing it. The main reason I will not vote for him or Belle, or Bagwell, or Alomar is the aforementioned lack of good statistical equalizers for the weight-training era.

Edit: For URI: I am amending my ballot to include Walker.

Tudor Fever

Feb 21 2007, 10:48 PM

QUOTE (Vermonter At Large @ Feb 21 2007, 06:41 PM)

The main reason I will not vote for him or Belle, or Bagwell, or Alomar is the aforementioned lack of good statistical equalizers for the weight-training era.

Edit: For URI: I am amending my ballot to include Walker.

If you're going to condemn this generation of hitters because of a perceived lack of statistical equalizers, then by this logic you should also exclude Walker. In any event, one can fairly evaluate a player of any era by how he performs relative to his peers. To supplement the points Delta made: Palmeiro had 11 top 10 finishes in home runs, 7 in walks, 7 in times on base, and 10 in extra base hits, to name just a few very meaningful categories. He also created 2002 runs in his career, currently good for 16th of all time. There's no hitter with a resume anywhere nearly that impressive whom we've excluded, except for Shoeless Joe Jackson.

Belle, Bagwell, and Alomar similarly dominated their peers, although Belle, unlike the other three, had a relatively short career.

Majordad1

Feb 22 2007, 07:45 AM

So, what effects do playing at Coors Field have on the game? The elevation allows batted balls to travel farther, primarily affecting slugging.

QUOTE

BACKGROUND: Two mathematicians at the University of Northern Colorado are taking a fresh statistical look at the effects of elevation on hitting – specifically at Coors Field in Denver, Colorado, where the field is at a significantly higher altitude (5,277 feet) than any other major league ballpark in the United States. They found that elevation can significantly change the percentage of slugging.

ABOUT THE STUDY: Jay Schaffer and Erik Heiny studied the effects of elevation on slugging percentages -- the total number of bases divided by the number of at bats -- in major league baseball in 2003. They did this by applying a statistical model to determine whether elevation was a significant factor on the hitting statistics for both major leagues. They found that the slugging percentage at Coor's Field is about 9.2. percentage points than for stadiums at middle elevations (between 500 and 1,100 feet), and about 12.5 percentage points higher than at elevations below 500 feet. Other analysts have argued that the effect could also be attributed in part to the ballpark dimensions. However, although it is one of the largest ballparks in the major leagues, its dimensions aren't much different from other stadiums.

Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2006-12-01/

I'm not about to search to divide his stats into those at Coors Field and the rest. Applying a 12.5% decrease, Walker's career slugging goes from .565 to .494. How does this compare to other SoSH HoF inductees? Going from down the list starting with the most recent inductees:

Edgar Martinez .515
Roberto Alomar .443
Barry Larkin .444
Rickey Henderson .419
Dwight Evans .470
Tim Raines .425
Mark McGwire .588
Cal Ripken .447
Tony Gwynn .459
Wade Boggs .443
Paul Molitor .448

That's a pretty favorable comparison against his peers.

How does decreasing Larry Walker's slugging % affect his "worthiness" for the HoF? It doesn't. It's purely hypothetical. In actual play on the field, Walker posted a .565 stugging percentage. And play on the field is what the game is about.

Others have already pointed out his level of play with the Cardinals and Expos, and that his numbers show a differentiation from his teammates in Colorado. He could also play defense - 7 Gold Gloves attest to that. He was the NL MVP in 1997. He's a solid choice for the SoSH HoF. I'll stand by my vote.

Vermonter At Large

Feb 22 2007, 10:08 PM

Here's a little matrix to illustrate my points about the statistical inflation we're face with for the
muscle-ball era, with first-basemen ranked by cumulative Batting Runs Created (BRC) for each season:

CODE

1988               1989            1990               1991              1992
1. W.Clark     106 1. W.Clark    114 1. Fielder    117 1. Thomas      130 1. Thomas    124
2. Mcgriff     102 2. McGriff    110 2. McGriff    108 2. Palmeiro    114 2. McGriff   108
3. Galarraga   100 3. A.Davis     98 3. Murray     107 3. Fielder     103 3. McGwire    98
4. Murray       95 4. Mattingly   95 4. McGwire     93 4. McGriff      99 4. Kruk       93
5. Hrbek        93 5. G.Davis     92 5. Palmeiro    88 5. W.Clark      96 5. Grace      90
6. A.Davis      87 6. Esasky      91 6. W.Clark     88 6. Kruk         88 6. Bagwell    89
7. McGwire      87 7. Grace       87 7. Grace       81 7. Joyner       87 7. W.Clark    87
8. Mattingly    86 8. Murray      79 8. Hrbek       81 8. Bagwell      85 8. Palmeiro   85
9. G.Davis      82 9. McGwire     77 9. A.Davis     74 9. Milligan     71 9. Fielder    84
10. Joyner      80 10. Joyner     74 10. Milligan   72 10. Mattingly   70 10. Murray    82

      1993               1994            1995              1996               1997
1. Olerud      135 1. Thomas     122 1. Thomas     126 1. Vaughn      134 1. Thomas    130
2. Thomas      129 2. Bagwell    111 2. Palmeiro   108 2. Bagwell     133 2. Bagwell   129
3. Palmeiro    111 3. McGriff     90 3. Vaughn     106 3. Thomas      132 3. McGwire   124
4. Kruk        104 4. Palmeiro    83 4. Thome      100 4. Thome       125 4. Martinez  115
5. Grace       100 5. Vaughn      80 5. Grace      100 5. McGwire     125 5. Galarraga 114
6. Vaughn      100 6. W.Clark     77 6. Karros      97 6. Palmeiro    120 6. Thome     114
7. Bagwell      95 7. Galarraga   73 7. Martinez    95 7. Galarraga   114 7. Vaughn    108
8. Fielder      93 8. Fielder     67 8. McGwire     86 8. Jaha        102 8. T.Clark   102
9. Galarraga    92 9. Hamelin     67 9. McGriff     85 9. McGriff     100 9. Snow       99
10. Murray      8410. Olerud      67 10. Bagwell    82 10. Klesko      93 10. Grace     98

      1998               1999            2000              2001               2002
1. McGwire     159 1. McGwire    140 1. Helton     156 1. Helton      148 1. Thome     129
2. Vaughn      122 2. Bagwell    138 2. Delgado    150 2. Giambi      141 2. Giambi    128
3. Olerud      121 3. Palmeiro   132 3. Thomas     139 3. Pujols      113 3. Thome     119
4. Palmeiro    118 4. Giambi     121 4. Giambi     139 4. Thome       124 4. Pujols    113
5. Bagwell     116 5. Helton     116 5. Bagwell    134 5. Bagwell     124 5. Palmeiro  113
6. Galarraga   110 6. Delgado    111 6. Palmeiro   116 6. Palmeiro    119 6. Bagwell   109
7. Delgado     107 7. Olerud     109 7. Sweeney    113 7. Delgado     115 7. Delgado   104
8. Grace       104 8. Casey      109 8. Thome      112 8. Nevin       110 8. Olerud    102
9. Thomas      103 9. Thome      109 9. Vaughn     101 9. Klesko      103 9. D.Lee     102
10. T.Clark    101 10. McGriff   107 10. Nevin      97 10. Sweeney    101 10. Palmeiro  96

     2003                2004            2005
1. Helton      145 1. Helton     140 1. D.Lee      140
2. Pujols      142 2. Pujols     138 2. Pujols     133
3. Delgado     126 3. Ortiz      119 3. Ortiz      131
4. Thome       119 4. Thome      109 4. Teixeira   122
5. Sexson      115 5. Teixeira   100 5. Helton     109
6. Thomas      110 6. Casey       99 6. Konerko    105
7. Giambi      109 7. Hafner      99 7. Delgado    105
8. Bagwell     108 8. Konerko     98 8. Hafner     105
9. D.Lee        96 9. D.Lee       98 9. Sexson     103
10. Palmeiro    96 10. Overbay    98 10. Giambi     91I'm

not going to try to tie it together into anything other than what it is, just a dead ranking based on
BRC numbers. It's probably best to analyze it qualitatively.

The first thing you see is how inflated the numbers got beginning in 1993 (remembering that 1994 and 1995 were strike-shortened seasons). Prior to 1993, a 100-BRC season was essentially an all-star season. During the mid-90's, a 100-BRC season wouldn't even get you into the top-10 in some seasons. This gross inflation is the main problem I am trying to deal with. There are quite possibly a dozen or more 1B's in this 18-seasons span who are going to end up with HoF-quality numbers, and that's just not right.

Looking at this quantitatively, I would say that three players stand out as being consistently excellent over a long period of time: Frank Thomas, Todd Helton and Fred McGriff.

McGriff is a surprise to me, and had some good years also prior to the 1988 beginning of this matrix. I would put Jeff Bagwell slightly behind these three, and Jim Thome and Albert Pujols have a few more seasons to put together, but should also rate very highly on this list. So I would rate Thomas, Helton, McGriff and Bagwell as certifiable HOFers, with Pujols and Thome very probably headed there as well.

Beyond that, It's very murky. McGwire and Palmeiro were around for a long time, up and down on the list. McGwire had the three monster years (1997-99) that Palmeiro did not. Mo Vaughn, Jason Giambi and David Ortiz all had/have high peaks, but it's unlikely that the latter two will be around long enough to accumulate the numbers required for HoF inclusion and will join Vaughn in the Hall of very good when their playing days are over.

Teixeira, Delgado, Hafner and Lee should all have some good seasons ahead of them, as should guys like Ryan Howard, Justin Morneau and Lance Berkman (who may ultimately play more games at 1B than the OF).

So I don't know, should there ultimately be 16 or 17 guys from this era elected to the HoF at 1B? Maybe 7 or 8 would be about right. Clearly the standards need to be adjusted, and a better grip on the numbers required before we can really sort this out.

paulftodd

Feb 23 2007, 02:03 AM

The discussion of Larry Walker the hitter reminds me somewhat of Jim Rice discussions so even though I am not voting here until I have a chance to read the previous pages I wanted to look into it. Walker was obviously the better fielder and runner, but you do not get into the HOF on that alone as a corner OFer, I would say at least 80% of the weighting for a corner OF is based on how well they hit.

Larry Walker put up the following numbers at Coors

381/462/710/1172 with a BABIP of 390.

Elsewhere, road and at home in Montreal and St Louis his stats look like this

306/398/519/917 with a BABIP of 306

To give this some context, the OPS at Coors is higher than Barry Bonds post 1992 number (1.149) which is the best in MLB, while a 917 OPS would rank him 30th among players who played between 1993 and 2006 with at least 3000 PA, right behind Bobby Abreu and tied with Rafael Palmeiro. Most hitters hit better at home than away even in neutral parks so Larry Walker adjusted for Coors is somewhere between his unadjusted ranking of 7th and 30th. Split the difference and call it 17th (not very scientific but it is probably as accurate as most adjustments) and he is in the mix among Ken Griffey Jr, Delgado, Giambi

It was mentioned that perhaps Larry Walker numbers on the road were affected by his playing at Coors. I can see how this might be true in Fenway, as RHB would try and pull everything when they would be a better hitter not doing so, which is probably why so many LHB perform better when they come to Boston, since they go the other way more often. But at Coors, the advantage was that fly balls simply went 20 ft farther than at sea level. Of'ers have to play deeper, so more balls fall in for singles, and more fly balls balls are doubles or HR's, helping to explain Walkers much higher BABIP at Coors, so unless Walker was a GB hitter who changed his swing to hit FB's, it is hard to argue that Coors negatively affected his road numbers.

The other thing on Rice was his high strike out rate. Walker actually had a higher rate per AB, 17.8% vs 17.3%.

I know Rice is off the ballot here so am not making a case for Rice, just pointing out the concern on Walker in a bit more detail since Coors was the most extreme hitters park of all time, until the the humidor in 2002 where it is now more like Fenway during the late 70's.

Last thought. Recently I studied the effect of batting handedness among hitters. Walker of course is LHB and Rice was a RHB. We talk about the advantage that hitters have due to park, era, league, but what about players who need to face a pitcher from the same hand as they hit 70% vs 30% od the time. I looked at players who accumulated 5000 or more PA from 1920-1992 using Baseball References database. There were 486 such players (9.1% SHB, 56.6% RHB, 34.4% LHB).

Their performance on average was as follows

SHB 275/345/383/728
RHB 276/343/419/752
LHB 288/363/439/802

SHB did not seem to get much of any advantage from batting both sides of the plate, that is probably because they have 2 different swings to worry about, and most would do better choosing one side or the other.

LHB had a significantly better result than RHB, being 50 points higher on OPS. Not saying we should add 50 points of OPS or 12 points BA to every RHB to compare to a LHB, just saying it is a factor to consider between 2 players when all else else is equal, in which case you should vote right

.

paulftodd

Feb 23 2007, 03:12 AM

QUOTE (Vermonter At Large @ Feb 23 2007, 11:08 AM)

So I don't know, should there ultimately be 16 or 17 guys from this era elected to the HoF at 1B? Maybe 7 or 8 would be about right. Clearly the standards need to be adjusted, and a better grip on the numbers required before we can really sort this out.

This is a very good point. In a previous post I mentioned there were 486 players who had at least 5000 PA between 1920-1992. Those below 5000 PA would not be considered in the HOF. So I did a rough count from SOSH, and about 25% of the longevity eligible players are in SOSH HOF, it was a rough count so the number may be off by a couple of pct.

Say this era is 1993 to 2012. The number of players for all positions that may be eligible based on PA and expected PA

Active w/5000 or more PA----------89
Retired w/5000 or more PA---------29
Active w/2500-4999 PA PA----------130

Total 248

Not all of the active w/ 2500-4999 PA will go on to 5000 PA, 68 of them have an OPS+ below 100, so lets assume half do not make it so about approximately 214 players may be considered eligible for HOF who played between 1993-2012. Seemed a little high to me but we have twice as many players as we had from 1920-1961, so the number of players per era that will be eligible should be greater and twice as many players from the 1993-2012 era should be elected as were elected from players elected from the 1920-1941 era

Adhering to the 25% rule would allow you to pick 54 players from all positions (except pitchers)

That gives you 6 open positions for 1B assuming all positions are equal, and they are not, close to your bottom estimate.

Doing the same for 1Bmen

Active w/5000 or more PA----------9
Retired w/5000 or more PA---------6
Active w/2500-4999 PA PA----------8

Total 23

25% gives you 6 again

So 6-7 seems reasonable.

Vermonter At Large

Feb 23 2007, 06:18 AM

PFT,

Nice post on the Walker/Coors thing. I think, though, that the negative effects of hitting in Coors do go beyond the "extra 20 feet." If, for instance, the primary effect on pitchers is less break in their breaking balls, the supposition is that some hitters may not see enough good breaking stuff playing (or taking BP) there and therefore would be more susceptible to breaking balls on the road. I don't think this is necessarily a measurable phenomenon, but it does make sense.

Then of course you have the problem of players having "out-of-body" hitting experiences - in other words they change their approach and/or their swing to take full advantage of hitting there and that hurts them on the road. This is what I refer to in Boston as "monsteritis," and I could see that happening to some hitters in Denver. I wouldn't actually think Walker was particulary susceptible to this being a line-drive hitter primarily, but certainly guys like Bichette and Castillo may have suffered from it.

mclusky

Feb 23 2007, 09:28 AM

QUOTE (Vermonter At Large @ Feb 22 2007, 10:08 PM)

I would put Jeff Bagwell slightly behind these three...

But Bagwell was easily a better player than Thomas/McGriff/Helton.

Vs. Thomas, Bagwell was heads and shoulders a better defender and baserunner; Thomas was probably a better hitter, you'd prefer him if you weren't relying on him to carry a glove.

Vs. Helton, Jeff Bagwell played in the Astrodome until he was 32, (which is practically all of Todd Helton's career to date). You're directly comparing a player in the most run-suppressing park of all-time to a player in the most run-conducive park of all-time. Bagwell's offense was more potent than Helton's, considering the average numbers of runs it took to win a game in each park.

Vs. McGriff, same argument. From your own list, Bagwell shows as many top five and top ten finishes in runs created as McGriff, while McGriff was playing in hitter-friendly Jack Murphy and Fulton-County.

URI

Feb 23 2007, 11:22 AM

QUOTE (mclusky @ Feb 23 2007, 09:27 AM)

But Bagwell was easily a better player than Thomas/McGriff/Helton.

Vs. Thomas, Bagwell was heads and shoulders a better defender and baserunner; Thomas was probably a better hitter, you'd prefer him if you weren't relying on him to carry a glove.

Vs. Helton, Jeff Bagwell played in the Astrodome until he was 32, (which is practically all of Todd Helton's career to date). You're directly comparing a player in the most run-suppressing park of all-time to a player in the most run-conducive park of all-time. Bagwell's offense was more potent than Helton's, considering the average numbers of runs it took to win a game in each park.

Vs. McGriff, same argument. From your own list, Bagwell shows as many top five and top ten finishes in runs created as McGriff, while McGriff was playing in hitter-friendly Jack Murphy and Fulton-County.

Towards the end of the Astrodome, it trended to more hitter-friendly than it was in the past (not to say it didn't still play as a pitcher's park...it did, but it was more towards the NL average than to say...Dodger Stadium)

Jack Murphy wasn't significantly a hitter's park either. The three years McGriff was there, it was average in 91, and 93. Run scoring was 3% over average in the Murphy in 92.

mclusky

Feb 23 2007, 11:53 AM

QUOTE (URISoxFan @ Feb 23 2007, 11:22 AM)

Towards the end of the Astrodome, it trended to more hitter-friendly than it was in the past (not to say it didn't still play as a pitcher's park...it did, but it was more towards the NL average than to say...Dodger Stadium)

Then just imagine I said this: One of the most run-suppressing parks...

QUOTE

Jack Murphy wasn't significantly a hitter's park either. The three years McGriff was there, it was average in 91, and 93. Run scoring was 3% over average in the Murphy in 92.

and this: Relatively hitter friendly...

I was talking off the top of my head on the park factors, but I don't think the thrust of my argument would be any different. Jeffrey Bagwell was really good, even in comparision to contemporary formidable first basemen.

Vermonter At Large

Feb 23 2007, 12:16 PM

QUOTE (mclusky @ Feb 23 2007, 11:53 AM)

I was talking off the top of my head on the park factors, but I don't think the thrust of my argument would be any different. Jeffrey Bagwell was really good, even in comparision to contemporary formidable first basemen.

Well ... don't let the data get in the way of your argument.

Seriously, this wasn't meant to be a definitive analysis, just a snapshot of things with the basic argument being that things changed drastically in 1993 and there are a heckuva lot more candidates for the HoF from this group than there should be.

My selections of players was just as arbitrary as yours, but at least I looked at the data. I thought about establishing a points system to the rankings, then pulled back from that because those would just be another set of confusing numbers that cloud the real issues I was trying to put forth.

Perhaps Bagwell was better than McGriff, perhaps not. Perhaps Palmeiro was better than Thome, perhaps not. Helton and Pujols may or may not even get enough cumulative numbers in their careers to warrant inclusion. Perhaps park factors come into play, perhaps not. Perhaps defense and speed make a difference among first basemen, perhaps not. I don't think we have the tools to grasp the numbers effectively enough to answer any of those questions.

Tudor Fever

Feb 23 2007, 12:32 PM

QUOTE (Vermonter At Large @ Feb 23 2007, 12:16 PM)

Perhaps Bagwell was better than McGriff, perhaps not. Perhaps Palmeiro was better than Thome, perhaps not. Helton and Pujols may or may not even get enough cumulative numbers in their careers to warrant inclusion. Perhaps park factors come into play, perhaps not. Perhaps defense and speed make a difference among first basemen, perhaps not. I don't think we have the tools to grasp the numbers effectively enough to answer any of those questions.

Bagwell was very clearly better than McGriff. If you use BP’s metrics, which are as good as any, Bagwell’s .323 EQA and 135.9 WARP3 dwarf Crime Dog’s .307 EQA and 104.6 WARP3. OPS+ tells the same tale, 150 to 134.

I agree with you about Palmeiro, Thome, Helton, and Pujols, although Pujols would have to get hit by a truck tomorrow to avoid being a Hall of Fame slam dunk.

As for your comments about whether park factors and defense matter, to imply that they don’t is inane. You’re a smart guy, so I assume that you know this and are just trying to stir the debate, which is fine.

mclusky

Feb 23 2007, 12:55 PM

QUOTE (Vermonter At Large @ Feb 23 2007, 12:16 PM)

...there are a heckuva lot more candidates for the HoF from this group than there should be...

Well for one, I don't know when we arrived at a consensus about how many HoF candidates there "should be" from one position. Secondly, you've got guys in a "group" whose careers started almost two decades apart -- you're talking about Ryan Howard and Justin Morneau in a group with Fred McGriff and Mark McGwire? That's like putting Reggie Jackson and Mickey Mantle in the same historical group.

QUOTE

Perhaps Bagwell was better than McGriff, perhaps not. Perhaps Palmeiro was better than Thome, perhaps not. Helton and Pujols may or may not even get enough cumulative numbers in their careers to warrant inclusion. Perhaps park factors come into play, perhaps not. Perhaps defense and speed make a difference among first basemen, perhaps not. I don't think we have the tools to grasp the numbers effectively enough to answer any of those questions.

Maybe so, or consider that maybe it just isn't as complicated as you're intent on making it. Either way, this is pretty existential commentary for someone who's filled about 10 pages of posts in this thread with various statistical breakdowns.

Vermonter At Large

Feb 23 2007, 05:43 PM

QUOTE (mclusky @ Feb 23 2007, 12:54 PM)

Maybe so, or consider that maybe it just isn't as complicated as you're intent on making it. Either way, this is pretty existential commentary for someone who's filled about 10 pages of posts in this thread with various statistical breakdowns.

I haven't counted, but it's probably more like 50 pages.

QUOTE

Tudor Fever:
Bagwell was very clearly better than McGriff. If you use BP’s metrics, which are as good as any, Bagwell’s .323 EQA and 135.9 WARP3 dwarf Crime Dog’s .307 EQA and 104.6 WARP3. OPS+ tells the same tale, 150 to 134.

The problem is that many of us, myself included, live perhaps too much in the world of equalized stats. If we do that, perhaps we miss the bigger picture here. Looking at the matrix in my earlier post you can see how inflated the raw numbers got in 1993 and beyond. The curious thing about the change, however (and this happened in 1920 as well) is that the whole league doesn't suddenly gain 20% on their run production. Selected players (the ones best equipped for the change) gain 40%, and the rest of the league doesn't change much at all. What this does is that it warps the reference point for the equalization - be it defined as league average or replacement player, or replacement wins, etc. For this reason, I do not trust that the equalized or normalized stats are giving us the correct data. Since McGriff had his best years before 1993, and Bagwell after, I do not trust the comparisons between them. Comparing Bagwell to Helton, or Pujols would be easier, since they all mainly played in the later era.

QUOTE

Tudor Fever:
As for your comments about whether park factors and defense matter, to imply that they don’t is inane. You’re a smart guy, so I assume that you know this and are just trying to stir the debate, which is fine..

Sure they do, but again I like to see the actual home/away breakdowns too. Helton, for instance, likely gets hammered by PF - perhaps a little more than he should. Defense and speed are important too, but certainly less so at 1B than any other position. Bagwell was probably a better defensive player than Thomas, but I don't think it was a Vic Power vs Dick Stuart-sized gap.

ToxicSmed

Feb 25 2007, 08:08 PM

Jeff Bagwell
David Cone
Andre Dawson
Larry Walker
Rafael Palmeiro
John Olerud

Edit: I thought I would give a brief defense of my Olerud selection. He had a long, unique career (straight to the majors), a career .398 OBP in over 9000 PAs, and played plus, plus defense. If he was a Yankee, Red Sox, Cub, etc. he would be a no brainer. He had a fantastic career.

mabrowndog

Feb 25 2007, 09:17 PM

QUOTE

If he was a Yankee, Red Sox, Cub, etc. he would be a no brainer. He had a fantastic career.

Excellent point about the lack of exposure during his career, most of which was spent in cities with far dimmer spotlights.

I think the problem Olerud faces is that in spite of his defense, his power output at a traditional power position was far short of the bar set by his predecessors in the game.

Had Wade Boggs and John Olerud switched positions and teams, we might be having a different discussion.

ToxicSmed

Feb 26 2007, 10:53 AM

QUOTE (mabrowndog @ Feb 25 2007, 09:17 PM)

I think the problem Olerud faces is that in spite of his defense, his power output at a traditional power position was far short of the bar set by his predecessors in the game.

I agree that this is Olerud's biggest shortcoming in the minds of HoF voters but it doesn't have such a negative impact on me. His career line was .295/.398/.465. I think it is important to consider the value of such a high OBP in relation to a high SLG and to overcome the traditional idea of what a first baseman should or should not deliver.

The real question should be if Olerud was one of the most valuable first basemen of his time (an era of extremely productive first basemen). When his ability to get on base and his wizardry with a glove are considered along with his two world championships and his unique career path I think it shows him worthy of inclusion in Cooperstown.

paulftodd

Feb 28 2007, 07:14 AM

QUOTE (ToxicSmed @ Feb 26 2007, 11:52 PM)

I agree that this is Olerud's biggest shortcoming in the minds of HoF voters but it doesn't have such a negative impact on me. His career line was .295/.398/.465. I think it is important to consider the value of such a high OBP in relation to a high SLG and to overcome the traditional idea of what a first baseman should or should not deliver.

The real question should be if Olerud was one of the most valuable first basemen of his time (an era of extremely productive first basemen). When his ability to get on base and his wizardry with a glove are considered along with his two world championships and his unique career path I think it shows him worthy of inclusion in Cooperstown.

I never really considered Olerud as HOF material, but after looking at his stats he is comparable to Edgar Martinez but played the field and was a great fielder. The guy was a class act to boot (Edgar was too). If Edgar Martinez and Fred Mcgriff are Sosh HOFers , Olerud is also.

I would take Bill James and VAL's suggestion, step back and wait a little on these guys who played in the juiced era until we have a better idea what has caused the spike, their stats look great compared to 1946-1992 era players, but the real test of being in the HOF is how you stack up against players in your own era, and until we have another 5 years of data, you just do not know.