BBF Progressive HoF Election: 2009

[Paul Wendt]

Take my advice and reread it next week, Mike.
Happy New Year.

[SavoyBG]

Starting and stopping on the basepaths is inherently risky, not to mention diving into first on a pickoff.

Look at what happened to Wong in an interleague game a few years ago.

[BigRon]

Jeez,guys, where's the Christmas spirit? These posts are a lot more enjoyable, in my opinion, when people aren't sniping at each other.

[DoubleX]

Take my advice and reread it next week, Mike.
Happy New Year.

I know you like to think you're always on it, but there is no high road here Paul. See Paul, I actually do re-read what I post, this is why my posts are often edited. I also frequently re-read what others post (which may also prompt me to edit). In that vein, your two posts today, in their general tone, the insinuations therein, and particularly the comments about my "gross exaggerations" and statements made "ignorance" (even though I never made the attributed statements), crossed a line. You're presumptuous Paul, plain and simple, and it often seems derived from your inability to properly and/or fully read others posts and/or put statements in context.

So please take my advice, if you're going to comment on something I've said, be sure you've carefully read what I've actually said, understand the context statements were made in, and then choose your words delicately. Perhaps if you were to go back and do that in this thread, you would see that much of the content of your two posts, in particular the presumptions therein, was off base and ill-founded.

Happy New Year to you as well.

[DoubleX]

To be fair Paul, I've decided to go respond to your two posts, point by point, referencing the actual record of my posts in this thread where relevant, to demonstrate just how off base and presumptuous your comments were:

Mike DoubleXX should have a problem.
He puts a lot of weight on the twisting, turning, and pivoting that one must do in order to field firstbase. In fact we don't have any good evidence that a Ted Kluszewski or a Harmon Killebrew would be notably more productive, durable, or longeved :-) as a full-time DH. Batting requires more twisting. Baserunning may be more injurious and more exhausting than fielding first.
(Kluszewski and Killebrew have been mentioned in this thread; "a Klu" or "a Killer" is simply a primary 1B in life who is a good what-if candidate for primary DH.)

While Edgar Martinez is a "terrible fielder" who hangs out in the cozy confines of the dugout while other men suffer injury and exhaustion through all that twisting, turning, and pivoting,
so every AL pitcher is a "terrible batter" who hangs out in the cozy confines while other men suffer injury and exhaustion by taking their turns at bat and on the bases.

The canard that "pitchers are not paid to hit" is no better than the one that "firstbasemen are not paid to field".

Mike's exaggerations are gross but there is some truth in his lamentations on the rough life of the major league firstbasemen, relative to DH. It's truth for NL pitchers too, relative to AL pitchers.

If there were no truth in it, we would see more pitchers used as pinch-runners. Not most pitchers, but some of them are quite fast and capable. Few of them pinch-run once a season, although many teams now carry only 13 men who are not pitchers. Starting and stopping on the basepaths is inherently risky, not to mention diving into first on a pickoff.

Batting may be riskier. It seems to me that a batter is seriously hit on the hand by a pitch, or hit on the fout by a foul tip, every week in the major leagues. (That may be an illusion as I am not paying close attention.) For some pitchers, as for most of us, simply swinging a bat in earnest is risky.

If anything, your comments grossly downplay the rigors of playing the field, and it's that kind of perspective to which I was directly commenting. I never said that batting doesn't require exertion and expose a player to injury, but all positional players (and pitchers in the NL) are exposed to those same risks, PLUS the rigors of playing in the field as well. Both a DH and a 1Bman will have to deal with the physical duress of hitting, but only the 1Bman will also have to deal with the physical duress of playing the field, which over a 162 game season imposes a much greater toll than sitting on the bench like a DH does. You concede this, but only after minimizing my "gross exaggerations."

As for Killebrew, I've mentioned several players in this thread, but I don't believe Killebrew was ever among them. Maybe someone else did, but if you're attributing it to me, it would be an example of you misreading my comments.

You're also dabbling into oversimplified hyperbole when you bring up pitchers (some might say "gross exaggeration"). A pitcher's role is completely different, and they are exerting themselves in entirely different ways.

(my emphasis)


Mike, if you reread the thread in 2010 (next week in more ways than one) I think you will see why Savoy infers your hatred for the DH. Alternatively there may be more than a pinch of personal antipathy for Edgar Martinez or personal fandom for Jorge Posada. It's difficult for outsiders to judge the mix of emotions but the emotional content is evident.

I've re-read the thread several times now (including before your challenge to do so). The entire backbone of my comments has been that a positional adjustment for DH is needed, same as is made for every position, and that it should be a relatively steep one for offense at DH given that no other skills outside hitting are required. Any antipathy I might have is for not making an adjustment for DH. As for antipathy for Edgar Martinez, I count no fewer than five posts (17, 26, 28, 48, 66) where I've said I would likely support Martinez going forward.

And where the heck does your Jorge Posada comment come from? Way back near the beginning of this thread, in trying to think of a good offensive but so-so defensive catcher for purposes talking about how WAR rates defense for catchers, I came up with Jorge Posada. Later I came up with a better example, Mike Piazza, and he's been the subject of much conversation since then, yet you're not inferring any special affinity for him. Think of Posada as my Alpha example and Piazza as the improved Beta version.

As for Posada, I brought up his name once more, in response to Savoy's hypothetical with Piazza on the Rays, to which I responded with a hypothetical with Piazza on the the Rays' rivals, the Yankees and Red Sox, mentioning specifically Jason Varitek, David Ortiz, Hideki Matsui, and Mark Teixeira in addition to Posada. In fact, many players have been brought up, perhaps randomly at times, in the course of this discussion, yet there is no inference about any special affinity for these players. So why single out me with Posada? How is my mentioning Posada any different than Savoy bringing up a random hypothetical about the Rays and John Jaso?

Yes, it is difficut for outsiders ot judge the mix of emotions, but the emotional content is not evident, particularly when it seems that a great deal of context has been overlooked.

If you reread it after recognizing that WAR does include a positional adjustment --and it's a 223-run premium for Piazza relative to Martinez, worth about 22 wins-- then you'll see why much of it seems to be a rant from ignorance.

See #73 and #61 for more information about WAR components using the example of six recent stars with equal career ratings for "offense": Tony Gwynn, Mike Piazza, Roberto Alomar, Edgar Martinez, Mark McGwire,and Barry Larkin

Please point out to me exactly where I said WAR does not include a positional adjustment. Was it in post 26 when I said, "I don't think the solution is in punishing the DH, per se, but to make better adjustments for other positions, particularly catcher...In this vein, I think Win Shares does a better job with defense, as it seems to do a better job of adjusting for position." Maybe it's just me, but it seems that statement clearly acknowledges that WAR makes positional adjustments while also clearly indicating my feeling that the adjustments, at least for catcher, aren't good enough (and I also referenced thoughts I had a while back on this very topic when comparing Gabby Hartnett to Gene Tenace, but that seems to have gone overlooked).

As I've said a few times now (you can go back and look), this was a great conversation, but it got to the point where each side was just rehashing the same point. There wasn't a meeting of the minds and it didn't appear that there was going to be one.

So I'll close here by repeating the advice from my previous post, please, if you're going to comment on something I've said, be sure you've carefully read what I've actually said, understand the context statements were made in, and then choose your words delicately. Your inferences and insinuations aren't appreciated, particularly when it's clear that you either haven't read previous posts fully, and/or are taking individual statements out of context.

Now I am really done with this conversation. I'll see you on the pseudo-high road.

[Ace Venom]

I think the discussion ran its course.

[Ubiquitous]

Yes it probably has but it has gotten the vote total to 28 and there will probably be 30+ voters when the last minute voters chime in at the end. Which would be the highest vote total in a long time.

[Paul Wendt]

I will limit this to the positional adjustment in WAR ratings.

... The entire backbone of my comments has been that a positional adjustment for DH is needed, same as is made for every position, and that it should be a relatively steep one for offense at DH given that no other skills outside hitting are required. Any antipathy I might have is for not making an adjustment for DH.

WAR by Sean Smith does include a positional adjustment for DH, same as for any other position. Edgar Martinez is debited -140 runs because he was sitting in the cozy confines of the dugout while Ted Kluszeswki is debited -72 runs because he was fielding first. Mark McGwire is debited -113 runs because he was fielding first. Kluszewski played about 3/4 so long as Martinez, McGwire about equally long. Martinez is debited at a higher rate, about double Kluszewski, because the adjustment is steeper for DH than for 1B; put another way, there is an adjustment against a full-time DH relative to a full-time 1B.

The debit was about -15 runs per year for Martinez as full-time DH, only about -7 per year for Klu and -9 per year for McGwire.
(These are eyeball estimates from data published at bb-ref player pages and those data are integers which may include rounding error. Yet they are accurate enough to reveal that the positional adjustment against 1B is greater per game or per plate appearance recently, for McGwire's leagues, than it was for Kluszewski's leagues. Rounding error and expansion from 154 to 162 games cannot account for the greater estimated debits against McGwire.)

Catchers Jorge Posada and Mike Piazza are credited +86 and +83 runs, or about +8 per year as heavy-duty catchers; perhaps an everyday catcher would get +10 runs. Those career credits +87 and +83 are worth about eight wins --against a career secondbaseman(?) or a utility player who gets positional adjustment near zero. Put another way, Posada and Piazza are credited +226 and +223 runs relative to Martinez because they were behind the plate while he was hanging out in the cozy confines. Those credits are worth about 22 wins relative to Martinez, 22 career WAR.

And where the heck does your Jorge Posada comment come from?

search "asinine"
Reread the whole paragraph. It's all about the positional adjustment against DH, whose existence in the WAR rating system Mike doesn't recognize (at least, didn't then recognize). It also shows that Martinez & Posada really touch a nerve (touched a nerve).
Perhaps that will be edited. It's #17. Search "asinine" still works for me now and that paragraph, with some that precede it, still shows what I have described.

Mike confuses (at least, confused) the ratings for fielding, Rfield and dWAR, with the positional adjustment which is incorporated in oWAR as published at bb-ref player pages.

See #61 and #73 for more about the distinction, especially *oRAR* and *dRAR* which represent my transfer of the positional adjustment from "offense" to "defense".

[DoubleX]

I will limit this to the positional adjustment in WAR ratings.

WAR by Sean Smith does include a positional adjustment for DH, same as for any other position. Edgar Martinez is debited -140 runs because he was sitting in the cozy confines of the dugout while Ted Kluszeswki is debited -72 runs because he was fielding first. Mark McGwire is debited -113 runs because he was fielding first. Kluszewski played about 3/4 so long as Martinez, McGwire about equally long. Martinez is debited at a higher rate, about double Kluszewski, because the adjustment is steeper for DH than for 1B; put another way, there is an adjustment against a full-time DH relative to a full-time 1B.

The debit was about -15 runs per year for Martinez as full-time DH, only about -7 per year for Klu and -9 per year for McGwire.
(These are eyeball estimates from data published at bb-ref player pages and those data are integers which may include rounding error. Yet they are accurate enough to reveal that the positional adjustment against 1B is greater per game or per plate appearance recently, for McGwire's leagues, than it was for Kluszewski's leagues. Rounding error and expansion from 154 to 162 games cannot account for the greater estimated debits against McGwire.)

Catchers Jorge Posada and Mike Piazza are credited +86 and +83 runs, or about +8 per year as heavy-duty catchers; perhaps an everyday catcher would get +10 runs. Those career credits +87 and +83 are worth about eight wins --against a career secondbaseman(?) or a utility player who gets positional adjustment near zero. Put another way, Posada and Piazza are credited +226 and +223 runs relative to Martinez because they were behind the plate while he was hanging out in the cozy confines. Those credits are worth about 22 wins relative to Martinez, 22 career WAR.



search "asinine"
Reread the whole paragraph. It's all about the positional adjustment against DH, whose existence in the WAR rating system Mike doesn't recognize (at least, didn't then recognize). It also shows that Martinez & Posada really touch a nerve (touched a nerve).
Perhaps that will be edited. It's #17. Search "asinine" still works for me now and that paragraph, with some that precede it, still shows what I have described.

Mike confuses (at least, confused) the ratings for fielding, Rfield and dWAR, with the positional adjustment which is incorporated in oWAR as published at bb-ref player pages.

See #61 and #73 for more about the distinction, especially *oRAR* and *dRAR* which represent my transfer of the positional adjustment from "offense" to "defense".

Thanks paul for perfectly illustrating my point about your penchant for presumption and inability to observe context. Bravo. Who was your post directed to anyway given that you refer to me in the third person.

Consider this my last post to you. Now back to the pseudo high road. Ill look out for you.

[Ubiquitous]

I would argue that the positional "penalty" for DH in WAR should be higher. I do believe the penalty is 15 runs which is about a win and a half. A 2 WAR player is considered a starter so basically according to WAR replacement level for a DH is a player who not good enough to be a starter. Personally I think replacement level should be at least at the starter level and probably a little bit more. Every single hitter in baseball can be a DH. There is no real pool of DH specialists that we are drawing from.

[SavoyBG]

Every single hitter in baseball can be a DH.

No, there are plenty of players in baseball who are defensive sepcialists at skill positions (SS, 2B, C) who have never hit enough for anybody to let them DH.

Saying that any hitter can DH would be like saying that any position player can play SS or CF. It's theoretically correct but the results would be disasterous for that team.

What would be worse, playing Dave Kingman at SS or letting Ray Oyler DH?

Oyler's career OPS+ is 48. Kingman was actually a 3Bman in 1971, and I would bet that he played some SS as a teenager.

My point is, if you can say that ANY hitter can DH, you can also say that any fielder can play SS or CF.

Yes, there are probably more players that would be well below replacement (fielding) level at SS than hitting level at DH, but there are certainly lots of "hitters" who would be well below replacement level at DH.

[Ubiquitous]

And does any of that refute my belief that the "penalty" for being a DH is too low?

[SavoyBG]

And does any of that refute my belief that the "penalty" for being a DH is too low?

I have no idea, but if one component of WAR is wrong, according to you, who's to say that there are not lots of other problems?

I wasn;t trying to refute your belief about the WAR penalty for being a DH anyway,

I was refuting your belief that "any" hitter can be a DH.

Like I said, if "any" hitter can be a DH, than any hitter can also be a SS.

[Fielding Marshall]

Roberto Alomar
Kevin Appier
Albert Belle
Ellis Burks
David Cone
Dwight Evans
Mark Grace
Barry Larkin
Fred Lynn
Edgar Martinez
Fred McGriff
Rob Nen
Dan Quisenberry
Willie Randolph
Dave Stieb


For the record, we're voting on Michael Jackson the pitcher, not the musician.

[leecemark]

--Well in the sense that you could pencil them iun the lineup sure. That they could actually play the position at a major league level is another story. If might be 1,000 people on the planet able to hit major league pitching at an acceptable level. Maybe half of them also have the ability to play major league defense - and even fewer of them who can handle the more demanding defensive slots. So you have a (relatively) huge pool of potential DHs and a much smaller pool at the other positions.

[jjpm74]

Kevin Appier

I almost pulled the trigger on Appier. I'm actually surprised that you are the first to cast a vote for him here. Appier's career era+ is 121 and his pWAR peak is 7.6-8.4-4.4-4.3-6.2-5.3 which is impressive.

[SavoyBG]

--Well in the sense that you could pencil them iun the lineup sure. That they could actually play the position at a major league level is another story. If might be 1,000 people on the planet able to hit major league pitching at an acceptable level. Maybe half of them also have the ability to play major league defense - and even fewer of them who can handle the more demanding defensive slots. So you have a (relatively) huge pool of potential DHs and a much smaller pool at the other positions.

Your numbers are total guesses on your part.

I would agree that there are less people who can hit AND play defense than there are people who can just hit, but there are alos lots of people who can play major league defense but can't hit.

[leecemark]

--I agree, but you need to be able to do both to hold down a position for long. That is the small pool of players. My numbers are just a shot in the dark, but the difference in the pool of qualified players should be apparent to anyone.

[SavoyBG]

--I agree, but you need to be able to do both to hold down a position for long.

Tell that to 11 year major leaguer Bill Bergen with his OPS+ of 21.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...ergebi01.shtml

He could have been a DH, right?

From 1909-1911 in over 900 plate appearances his average OPS+ was 1

[Ace Venom]

This election is closed. We elected Roberto Alomar and Barry Larkin in their first year of eligibility.

[Brad Harris]

This election is closed. We elected Roberto Alomar and Barry Larkin in their first year of eligibility.

Hey BBWAA...eat our shorts!

[hairmetalfreek]

This election is closed. We elected Roberto Alomar and Barry Larkin in their first year of eligibility.

Both received very strong support...sort of surprising for a couple of first year guys. Alomar only 1 vote short of being a unanimous selection; Larkin only 2 shy.