2019 Baseball Hall of Fame Vote is Revealed 1/22

On WAR: Judgments go into the various formulas — what to measure, how to measure it, how much weight to give it — that may or may not reflect your own ideas of what distinguishes one player from others. If you understand the formula and accept the premises, more power to you in using it to evaluate seasons or careers. (By “you,” I mean you in general; specifically, I have no doubt that ml1 is one of those WAR users who know exactly what they’re talking about.)

I haven’t done all the homework, but in WAR I see the risk of selecting metrics that lead to the types of categorizations that give us “Jimmy Rollins is one of only three players to have 2,000 hits, 500 doubles, 400 stolen bases, 4 Golden Gloves and at least 1 MVP Award, and the others are Willie Mays and Rickey Henderson.” (I made that up for illustrative purposes.)

I also see the risk of selecting metrics that end up being, without intent, tailored to a player like Bobby Grich.

For what it’s worth, I remember seeing stories hailing Jim Edmonds’s qualifications when he became HOF eligible. While I read here and there, I’m no mfpark as far as paying attention, so Edmonds must not been all that overlooked.



I know you have a lot of skepticism about WAR.  But I find it hard to argue against a metric that at almost every position, the top ranked players are all in the Hall of Fame.  The top players overall are all of the game's immortals.  Clearly the inputs into the algorithms mostly correspond with what everyone sees with their own eyes in terms of greatness.

One of the things that goes into WAR and gets more weight than voters have typically given is OBP.  We now know how important getting on base is to winning baseball games.  Bobby Grich had a lifetime OBP of .371.  That's very impressive, and helped his team win games.  Kenny Lofton also had a lifetime OBP over .370, and that's why he turns up near the top of the CF lifetime WAR.  I doubt anyone voting for the HoF ever gave much weight to a guy's walk rate.  But we now know that walking a lot makes a player valuable, so maybe they should.

That's the thing about any advanced metric.  It should occasionally uncover something that has been overlooked.  If it just tells you what you already knew it's useless.

I'm looking forward to the next decade of truly advanced metrics from the data being collected by high speed cameras.  Finally we can really know who the best fielders are.  Which ones cover the most ground the most efficiently.  Which ones throw hardest and most accurately.  

Most baseball fans my age are old school and a lot of them essentially hate the new metrics. I don't understand that.  If we can know things with more certainty, like how hard a ball is hit or how much a curve ball spins, or how much ground an outfielder covers, why wouldn't we want to?  Personally, I'd rather know more stuff than guess at more stuff.



ml1 said:

If we can know things with more certainty, like how hard a ball is hit or how much a curve ball spins, or how much ground an outfielder covers, why wouldn't we want to?  Personally, I'd rather know more stuff than guess at more stuff.

That’s a philosophical question. When it comes to the sports I enjoy, for purely selfish reasons (that is, my salary and HOF aspirations don’t depend on this outlook), I’d rather guess at more stuff. Guessing — and its barstool, online and family corollary: debating — is one of the ways I can take a sport personally.



ml1 said:

I'm looking forward to the next decade of truly advanced metrics from the data being collected by high speed cameras.  Finally we can really know who the best fielders are.  Which ones cover the most ground the most efficiently.  Which ones throw hardest and most accurately.  

Most baseball fans my age are old school and a lot of them essentially hate the new metrics. I don't understand that.  If we can know things with more certainty, like how hard a ball is hit or how much a curve ball spins, or how much ground an outfielder covers, why wouldn't we want to?  Personally, I'd rather know more stuff than guess at more stuff.

I appreciate some of these advances from a game-watching perspective. But does more spin necessarily make the pitcher more effective? Remember how hard Bobby Parnell threw? Talk to me about Tony Gwynn's BA with two strikes, not the velocity of his lineouts. Great that nowadays technology can put a camera in home plate or on a goal line pylon, but is the view from either EVER worth a lick??? I think a lot of the technology and metrics make for nice talking points and interesting TV fun in the current age, but as measurements of a playing career, I confess I'm still a little "grumpy old man."


you can know something about advanced metrics and still debate stuff.  You just choose different metrics than I do.  Imagine if nobody recorded any data on any player.  You watch the games and you have no idea of BA, HRs, RBIs, ERA, errors, etc.  How could you have any decent conversation about who the best players were if all you had was some vague notion that a guy hit a bunch of home runs?

I think it's fascinating to know that Daniel Murphy for example started hitting more HRs because he changed his launch angle.  Back in the day, you could say -- "he looks like he's uppercutting more."  But you wouldn't know he was for sure.  Let me put it another way -- I'm glad we know that there are guys who are hitting HRs because they changed their launch angle instead of speculating that they started taking PEDs.

DaveSchmidt said:



ml1 said:

If we can know things with more certainty, like how hard a ball is hit or how much a curve ball spins, or how much ground an outfielder covers, why wouldn't we want to?  Personally, I'd rather know more stuff than guess at more stuff.

That’s a philosophical question. When it comes to the sports I enjoy, for purely selfish reasons (that is, my salary and HOF aspirations don’t depend on this outlook), I’d rather guess at more stuff. Guessing — and its barstool, online and family corollary: debating — is one of the ways I can take a sport personally.




ml1 said:

I love this stuff:

https://www.mlb.com/news/statcasts-best-defensive-plays-of-2016-season/c-199475544

As do I. But every numerical element of Hamilton's play would be exactly the case whether or not he actually caught the ball.



ml1 said:

Imagine if nobody recorded any data on any player. You watch the games and you have no idea of BA, HRs, RBIs, ERA, errors, etc.  How could you have any decent conversation about who the best players were if all you had was some vague notion that a guy hit a bunch of home runs?

“Man, every time that Jim Thome steps to the plate, I’m riveted. You see how fast that ball flew out of here, and how far? How he almost always seems to have two strikes on him, yet still does that? What, you say Bobby Abreu’s bat speed and exit velocity are better than his, that he’s a better fielder? OK, you go with that. I’ll take Thome.”

Sure, different metrics. No question, I’m a big fan of fallibility and uncertainty; they’re qualities that attracted me to baseball in the first place. (Excerpt from my Crash Davis soliloquy: I believe umps should be allowed to err, and baserunners should be allowed to lose contact with the bag for a millisecond while sliding across it without being called out.) I do share some appreciation of the insights that WAR and high-speed cameras have brought. I just prefer viewing the game through a more gee-whiz kind of prism.

Anyway. I don’t expect any Annie Savoys out there to be left slackjawed at my words.


Sometimes guys make spectacular looking plays because they got a late jump or took a bad route to the ball. Statcast can tell you the jump and the route efficiency too. 

Train_of_Thought said:



ml1 said:

I love this stuff:

https://www.mlb.com/news/statcasts-best-defensive-plays-of-2016-season/c-199475544

As do I. But every numerical element of Hamilton's play would be exactly the case whether or not he actually caught the ball.



We'll just have to agree to disagree. The cliché I prefer is "we don't have to guess when we can know."

DaveSchmidt said:



ml1 said:

Imagine if nobody recorded any data on any player. You watch the games and you have no idea of BA, HRs, RBIs, ERA, errors, etc.  How could you have any decent conversation about who the best players were if all you had was some vague notion that a guy hit a bunch of home runs?

“Man, every time that Jim Thome steps to the plate, I’m riveted. You see how fast that ball flew out of here, and how far? How he almost always seems to have two strikes on him, yet still does that? What, you say Bobby Abreu’s bat speed and exit velocity are better than his, that he’s a better fielder? OK, you go with that. I’ll take Thome.”

Sure, different metrics. No question, I’m a big fan of fallibility and uncertainty; they’re qualities that attracted me to baseball in the first place. (Excerpt from my Crash Davis soliloquy: I believe umps should be allowed to err, and baserunners should be allowed to lose contact with the bag for a millisecond while sliding across it without being called out.) I do share some appreciation of the insights that WAR and high-speed cameras have brought. I just prefer viewing the game through a more gee-whiz kind of prism.

Anyway. I don’t expect any Annie Savoys out there to be left slackjawed at my words.




ml1 said:

We'll just have to agree to disagree. The cliché I prefer is "we don't have to guess when we can know."

In one way or another, in one thread or another, we’ve been agreeing (more or less) to disagree along these lines for six years now. Happy anniversary!


I suspect you really just like to play devil's advocate.  Because it seems like you're arguing in favor of not knowing relevant information that is readily and easily available.  And I'm having a hard time believing you really think that.

Leaving aside the absurdity of sitting on a barstool going into depth on launch angle and velocity, there are a ton of non-advanced metrics that people can and should look at if they want to be more informed. There are stats like BABIP that give you indications in small samples of games how hitters are really hitting and how pitchers are really pitching.  Any stats that give you a clue of how lucky a player has been over a short run of games are helpful imho.  Any stats that can isolate a player's performance from the effects of his teammates are also helpful.

I had an argument here once with someone about Mike Piazza's defense as a catcher.  His argument was that Piazza was terrible because he couldn't throw out base stealers.  My argument was that throughout his career, his pitchers' ERA was better when he was in the game than when the other catchers were.  Back then we didn't have pitch framing stats, but I figured Piazza did everything else well as a catcher except throw guys out.  Of course the other person wasn't convinced (not that anyone ever is).  And maybe I was wrong.  But I figured if Piazza was really terrible as a catcher, his pitchers would give up more runs than when he wasn't in the game.  And that wasn't the case.

But that's just me.  I recognize that most guys my age prefer to talk about "guts" and "grit" and "gamers" and "chemistry" and all the other intangibles.  But to me, if any of those qualities are really meaningful, they show up in the numbers.




ml1 said:

I suspect you really just like to play devil's advocate.  Because it seems like you're arguing in favor of not knowing relevant information that is readily and easily available.  And I'm having a hard time believing you really think that.

Hey, I have a hard time believing some things about you, too. Kismet!

It’s context. Some things — baseball, say, or “Duck Soup” — I enjoy more when I don’t know (and when there’s no harm in not knowing) all the ins and outs.

Scrapple, anyone?


when people don't look too closely at the numbers they end up making passionate arguments that the Mets desperately need to sign Jason Marquis.


And you wonder why a Phillies fan likes thinking this way.


as a Mets fan, I can also say that the metrics are usually no consolation.  It typically means learning conclusively that your team wasn't unlucky, it really was bad.



DaveSchmidt said:



ml1 said:

Imagine if nobody recorded any data on any player. You watch the games and you have no idea of BA, HRs, RBIs, ERA, errors, etc.  How could you have any decent conversation about who the best players were if all you had was some vague notion that a guy hit a bunch of home runs?

“Man, every time that Jim Thome steps to the plate, I’m riveted. You see how fast that ball flew out of here, and how far? How he almost always seems to have two strikes on him, yet still does that? What, you say Bobby Abreu’s bat speed and exit velocity are better than his, that he’s a better fielder? OK, you go with that. I’ll take Thome.”

Sure, different metrics. No question, I’m a big fan of fallibility and uncertainty; they’re qualities that attracted me to baseball in the first place. (Excerpt from my Crash Davis soliloquy: I believe umps should be allowed to err, and baserunners should be allowed to lose contact with the bag for a millisecond while sliding across it without being called out.) I do share some appreciation of the insights that WAR and high-speed cameras have brought. I just prefer viewing the game through a more gee-whiz kind of prism.

Anyway. I don’t expect any Annie Savoys out there to be left slackjawed at my words.

Oh my...



ml1 said:

Sometimes guys make spectacular looking plays because they got a late jump or took a bad route to the ball. Statcast can tell you the jump and the route efficiency too. 
Train_of_Thought said:



ml1 said:

I love this stuff:

https://www.mlb.com/news/statcasts-best-defensive-plays-of-2016-season/c-199475544

As do I. But every numerical element of Hamilton's play would be exactly the case whether or not he actually caught the ball.

Either I'm very confused, or you just made MY point. History of course points toward the former.


I think we are saying the same thing in different ways.  Before advanced technology and metrics, if Hamilton had not made that play it didn't count as anything.  It was no putout, and if you were watching it, it was a terrific effort.  But now if you're a talent evaluator, and even if that ball ticks off Hamilton's glove and falls for an extra base hit, your Statcast metrics count it as an amazing play.  Over the course of a season, you can gather a ton of data that tells you how much ground guys cover, and how efficiently they do it.  That's valuable when you're trying to put a team together.  And a lot more accurate than counting how many putouts, assists and errors guys make.  Some guys get a lot of putouts because their pitchers don't strike out that many hitters.  Other guys don't make many errors because they don't get to as many balls as other guys.  Some guys don't get assists because runners don't attempt to take a base on their arms.  Now we know who throws the best, even if nobody ever challenges them.

I don't think any of this diminishes the conversation.  I think it makes the conversation better, and more well-informed.


The latest from Ryan Thibodaux, HOF vote tracker extraordinaire:

Looking more and more like Edgar and Hoffman will stay above 75% and get in.  Still could slip below the cut off, but they have been hanging above 75% since the first votes were revealed.

Moose once again is going to come up short.

"With 236 ballots revealed/~55.7% of the vote known:
Chipper - 98%
Vlad - 95%
Thome - 93%
Hoffman - 78.4%
Edgar 77.1%
-----
Mussina - 70%
BB/RC - 64%
Schilling - 59%
Walker - 39%
Vizquel - 33%
Manny - 23%
McGriff - 19%
Rolen - 13%
Andruw - 5.5%"



Edgar Martinez did not make it.  The remaining unknown ballots did not list him often enough.

Jones, Thome, Guerrero, and Hoffman are all in.


From son: “tfw when an edgar martinez award winner gets in but edgar martinez doesnt.”

Ah, well. Next year.


I was looking at Martinez's stats and he had his best years from age 32 to 38.  That's a big red flag for steriods, just sayin'.


Those were also the years when he became a full time DH.  Just sayin'.

yahooyahoo said:

I was looking at Martinez's stats and he had his best years from age 32 to 38.  That's a big red flag for steriods, just sayin'.



And looking ahead to the 2019 ballot:

Top newcomers are Mariano Rivera and Roy Halladay.  

Rivera is most likely a first ballot inductee.   There can be no doubts as to his dominance over his entire 19 year career, including post-seasons.  He retired at 43 and I swear he could have continued dominant pitching for more years if he wanted to.

Halladay's stats are impressive--0.659 winning percentage over 16 years, 20 shut outs, three 20 win seasons and two 19 win seasons in an era where 15 wins is considered very good for a starter, and that dramatic post-season shutout in 2010 for Philly.  The fact that many voters still don't want most first year nominees to get in might hurt Halladay a bit next year.  Then there is the sympathy factor that he died so young, offset by the recent report that he had opiates in his system when he crashed the plane.

The rest of the 2019 newcomers are pretty weak.  Helton, whose gaudy numbers are totally skewed by playing at altitude, should not get in and probably will only get token support.  To cut and paste from an MLB.com article:  "Helton was a career Rockie. In 1,141 games at home, his numbers were overwhelmingly Hall of Fame worthy: .345 batting average, .441 OBP, 1.048 OPS. In 1,106 games away from Coors Field, he hit .287 with a .386 OBP and an .855 OPS."

Andy Petite, Lance Berkman, and Roy Oswalt all had really good careers.  But they were not HOF worthy.

Given how weak the newcoming class is, and given the increasing tendency of voters to choose more candidates per ballot (they are allowed up to 10), it looks like Edgar Martinez (last year on ballot) will get in.  Almost every previous nominee who gained 70%+ but failed to hit 75% got in the next year.

Mike Mussina will be on the bubble next year.  Not sure if he can make the jump from 63% to 75%, and still not sure he is completely deserving to get in.

2020 is going to be a really interesting year.  Only Derek Jeter will be a lock for the incoming class.  Edgare will be off the ballot one way or another.  So do we go back to the days where there is only one inductee?  Or does this open the door for some surprises, such as Vizquel's defense being recognized or Bonds and/or Clemens clearing the clear hurdle (both would be in their 9th year of eligibility)?


our suspicions that many of the voters who don't allow their ballots to be released are old fogies seems to be borne out.  (Or maybe young fogies).  Aside from Chipper and Hoffman, it looks like the top 5 vote getters all got fewer votes among the unreleased ballots.  A combination of guys who won't vote for ANYONE on the first ballot, and guys who don't think a DH belongs in the Hall.

I think guys like that should be stripped of their ballots.  If you refuse to consider ANY player for what are essentially arbitrary reasons, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.  



mfpark said:

Halladay's stats are impressive--0.659 winning percentage over 16 years, 20 shut outs, three 20 win seasons and two 19 win seasons in an era where 15 wins is considered very good for a starter, and that dramatic post-season shutout in 2010 for Philly. 

Ahem. Postseason no-hitter.



mfpark said:

The rest of the 2019 newcomers are pretty weak.  Helton, whose gaudy numbers are totally skewed by playing at altitude, should not get in and probably will only get token support.  To cut and paste from an MLB.com article:  "Helton was a career Rockie. In 1,141 games at home, his numbers were overwhelmingly Hall of Fame worthy: .345 batting average, .441 OBP, 1.048 OPS. In 1,106 games away from Coors Field, he hit .287 with a .386 OBP and an .855 OPS."

I'm not endorsing him for the Hall, just saying that I REALLY enjoyed watching Todd Helton play baseball. Just a helluva good player, did it like you oughta, imho. One of my fave non-Mets.


I have a feeling Bonds and Clemens will never get in.  Which I think is a travesty.  No one dislikes Roger Clemens any more than me, but the guy was a lock HoFer before any PED use (which hasn't been proven anyway).  Same with Bonds.  There are several reasons I think they belong, and I think they're pretty convincing:

  • Even if you think the evidence is overwhelming that both used PEDs, both were among the best at their positions for years before any suspicion of PED use.  If both of their careers ended prior to their alleged PED use, they would have breezed into the Hall.
  • PED use was rampant during their careers.  Players ranging from journeymen to All-Stars were either using or were suspected of using.  Within an environment where lots of players were looking to PEDs for an edge, Bonds and Clemens were still giants of the game.
  • PED usage doesn't sharpen your batting eye or enable you to throw an arsenal of pitches for strikes.  Success as a hitter or pitcher isn't dependent only on strength.  Arguably steroid-enabled strength made Bonds and Clemens even better than they were, but some of their most unreal stats weren't plausibly enabled by PEDs.  Bonds ability to selectively swing at only pitches he could square up was other worldly, and arguably not at all connected to steroid use.
  • Even among PED users, the effects would be non-existent without the rigorous training that accompanied their use. The notion that PED use was a lazy "shortcut" is nonsense.  These guys trained longer and harder than anyone.  PED use may have enabled them to workout longer and more often.  But the idea that these guys cut corners to achieve excellence couldn't be more wrong.
  • And finally, there are guys in the Hall already who have a cloud of suspected PED use over them.  If you open the door to Piazza, Pudge Rodriquez or Bagwell, despite the whispers, what sense does it make to keep out the best hitter and best pitcher of the era?

I hope I'm wrong and I hope both guys get in the Hall of Fame eventually.

mfpark said:

Bonds and/or Clemens clearing the clear hurdle (both would be in their 9th year of eligibility)?




Train_of_Thought said:



mfpark said:

The rest of the 2019 newcomers are pretty weak.  Helton, whose gaudy numbers are totally skewed by playing at altitude, should not get in and probably will only get token support.  To cut and paste from an MLB.com article:  "Helton was a career Rockie. In 1,141 games at home, his numbers were overwhelmingly Hall of Fame worthy: .345 batting average, .441 OBP, 1.048 OPS. In 1,106 games away from Coors Field, he hit .287 with a .386 OBP and an .855 OPS."

I'm not endorsing him for the Hall, just saying that I REALLY enjoyed watching Todd Helton play baseball. Just a helluva good player, did it like you oughta, imho. One of my fave non-Mets.

he was a terrific player.  If lesser stats on the road disqualify, maybe we should be looking at other guys in the Hall.  What about all those left handed Yankees?  I have to believe their stats were a lot better at home than on the road.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.