BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1951

[bambambaseball]

Yes it should...there's just one problem...abotu 11 of your 15 picks are way weaker candidates than Santo and Blyleven.

Do you have a point? Santo and Blyleven wasnt even alive yet Mr I read the rules!

[SABR Matt]

Why do you think Bill Dickey isnt deserving of your balott?

Whoops...I voted for Dickey...just didn't write his name down in that post...sorry.

[SABR Matt]

Do you have a point? Santo and Blyleven wasnt even alive yet Mr I read the rules!

HE BROUGHT THEIR NAMES UP...NOT ME...read the post that precipitated that specific reply.

[Second Base Coach]

Matt, here is my point.

I think to make the HOF, it HAS to be ok to be closer to Ron Santo in ability than Babe Ruth.

The average pitcher among the next ten starting pitchers to make the HOF will be closer to Bert Blyleven in ability than Walter Johnson and Lefty Grove.

And that HAS to be OK.

And when I vote for Harlond Clift, it is because I think he is good enough, not because he is a hair below Mike Schmidt.

And Rabbit is over-rated by enough other people. He does not need my vote to be over-over-rated.

[SABR Matt]

I agree with you JDD...the problem, as I see it, is that you're either badly underrating Ron Santo when you make these comparisons, or there are a lot of players you're overrating if you think they're on par with Santo...I just don't see how Harlond Clift even remotely compared to Ron Santo.

Yes, I know he's not on the board yet, but JDD is the one making that comparison.

[Sockeye]

Bill Dickey
Burleigh Grimes
Bob Johnson
Chuck Klein
Eppa Rixey
Red Ruffing

Second election in a row that I made a mistake. Please add a vote for Bill Dickey. Forgot the check him on the ballot. Think it's time I get my eyes checked or something. Geesh

[Second Base Coach]

Some may over-rate Santo, because he is a SABR darling and it is fashionable to do so.

That said, using as many vague terms as possible, I can state the following:

"Many" think Santo should be in the HOF.

"Some" present HOFers are considered by "some" "experts" to be even less worthy than a player with Santo's resume. Meaning if Santo gets in one day, he won't be the worst non-pitcher there.

If that is the case, and if "some" consider that to be reasonable, then a "few" fans who like doing what we do here at this site may wish to use Santo as some sort benchmark for consideration. The leap some would take is this... if you are close to Santo, you are close to the HOF, because well, he is. It gets tricky if you make the line of dominoes too long because you lose your comps.

I say there are more players close to Santo's ability and record than you think. I don't overrate him. I don't think very many do. I think we have him pegged about right (very good for a decent amount of time and great during those seasons he was leading the league in walks while slugging .500). It is my opinion people talk him up just to join the HOF conversation, and in doing so overrate him in the process.

So if he is borderline, then I maintain if you rate him correctly, then there are a lot more borderline candidates than you think. I choose to vote for almost all of them, because many don't vote for any. They rank Santo too high, and thereby push the actual HOFers even higher. Which is odd because some don't belong in the first place, right?

That's why I vote for 15 in these little polls. Someone has to vote for the borderline candidates. That is what makes them borderline. Some say yea, some nay.

[SavoyBG]

BTW...for those who don't want to look up what I voted for:

Kiki Cuyler
Wes Ferrell
Lefty Gomez
Indian Bob Johnson
Rabbit Maranville
Sam Rice
Red Ruffing

You can't really think a vote for Grimes is ludicrous if you're voting for Ruffing. They are really pretty equal in career vale, and Grimes definitely had the better peak.

[SavoyBG]

duplicate post, sorry.

[Ace Venom]

I do have a conduct policy here now, so let's stop the negativity that I saw earlier. Don't make me regret taking over this project because I'll put this on hiatus again if I have to. Keep this on baseball discussion and stop with the personal attacks.

There's a decent argument for Harlond Clift and I cast a vote for him. He'll likely lose it once Stan Hack is on the ballot.

[SABR Matt]

You can't really think a vote for Grimes is ludicrous if you're voting for Ruffing. They are really pretty equal in career vale, and Grimes definitely had the better peak.

Grimes' career by PCA:

Yr	Wins	DIO	PCABA
1916	0.77	135	0.281
1917	0.41	581	0.231
1918	4.78	776	0.286
1919	2.01	550	0.260
1920	10.25	893	0.339
1921	10.16	917	0.335
1922	0.39	810	0.228
1923	5.10	989	0.276
1924	2.07	949	0.246
1925	1.22	760	0.240
1926	3.14	670	0.271
1927	4.01	775	0.276
1928	8.16	954	0.310
1929	4.66	687	0.292
1930	4.16	466	0.314
1930	-0.29	159	0.205
1931	2.83	640	0.268
1932	0.08	433	0.225
1933	-0.10	41	0.199
1933	0.37	202	0.242
1934	0.39	20	0.421
1934	0.14	87	0.240
1934	-0.07	56	0.211

Ruffing's career:

Yr	Wins	DIO	PCABA
1924	0.05	73	0.230
1925	2.39	660	0.260
1926	2.42	492	0.273
1927	1.9	472	0.264
1928	4.17	867	0.272
1929	1.06	746	0.238
1930	3.09	595	0.276
1930	0.02	78	0.226
1931	3.82	712	0.278
1932	7.7	756	0.326
1933	5.34	699	0.301
1934	4.87	747	0.289
1935	4.75	634	0.299
1936	6.06	795	0.300
1937	6.69	753	0.313
1938	7.61	738	0.328
1939	3.72	676	0.279
1940	3.82	661	0.282
1941	3.5	543	0.288
1942	3.46	573	0.284
1945	1.84	260	0.295
1946	2.76	166	0.391
1947	-0.12	161	0.216

Ruffing has a career PCA-BA of .287 to Grimes' .275.

Ruffing amassed 102.4 pitching marker points to Grimes' 71.2

Ruffing's peak was a little less impressive at the top but lasted one hell of a lot longer at a high level of performance.

[SavoyBG]

Ruffing has a career PCA-BA of .287 to Grimes' .275.

Ruffing amassed 102.4 pitching marker points to Grimes' 71.2

Ruffing's peak was a little less impressive at the top but lasted one hell of a lot longer at a high level of performance.

I don't see it. Here are each player's really good (or better) years in the order that you prefer:

Grimes

Yr	Wins	DIO	PCABA
1920	10.25	893	0.339
1921	10.16	917	0.335
1928	8.16	954	0.310
1923	5.10	989	0.276
1918	4.78	776	0.286
1929	4.66	687	0.292
1930	4.16	466	0.314
1927	4.01	775	0.276

Ruffing
Ruffing's career:

Yr	Wins	DIO	PCABA
1932	7.7	756	0.326
1938	7.61	738	0.328
1937	6.69	753	0.313
1936	6.06	795	0.300
1933	5.34	699	0.301
1934	4.87	747	0.289
1935	4.75	634	0.299
1928	4.17	867	0.272

Grimes is clearly better in just looking at each player's top 8 seasons. Ruffing wins the PCA battle based on having 9 pretty good years to Grimes only having 4 pretty good years, to go along with each player's reall good years.

Win shares makes both pitchers pretty even as Ruffing has better career value, but Grimes kills Red in peak value.

TOTAL
Ruffing - 322
Grimes - 286

BEST THREE SEASONS
Ruffing - 27, 25, 24
Grimes - 32, 30, 29

You might prefer the extra career value, and even I think that Ruffing was a bit better than Grimes, but I still don't think you can say that it's "ludicrous" to vote for Grimes.

[SABR Matt]

The HOF Marker puts a lot more emphasis on the peak than it does on the string of "pretty good" seasons as you put it. Grimes is getting a lot of value back for having a better peak that Ruffing can't touch...but Ruffing still flat out blows Grimes away in total Marker score...I think it's more important to be a very good player and hold that level for a long time than it is to have a better 3-year peak...even though my system puts extra added emphasis on the peak.

[SavoyBG]

The HOF Marker puts a lot more emphasis on the peak than it does on the string of "pretty good" seasons as you put it. Grimes is getting a lot of value back for having a better peak that Ruffing can't touch...but Ruffing still flat out blows Grimes away in total Marker score...I think it's more important to be a very good player and hold that level for a long time than it is to have a better 3-year peak...even though my system puts extra added emphasis on the peak.

Okay, but I'm sure that you have already voted for some players for this hall of fame whose career mark in PCA is below or not muich above Grimes' score of 71.2.

It's certainly not "ludicrous" to believe that Grimes is a hall of famer. Bill James ranks Grimes above Lefty Gomez, Clark Griffith, Urban Shocker, Addie Joss, Tony Mullane, among others that I don't think you would say were "ludicrous" hall of fame choices.

[SABR Matt]

Bill James' evaluation of pitchers is famously screwed up because he completely failed to consider defense independent evaluation techniques.

BTW...the career values of those pitchers you mentioned:

Gomez: 88.7
Griffith: 92.0
Shocker: 80.0
Joss: 104.9
Mullane: 85.0

I just cannot agree with James on Grimes' position...I was too harsh in my wording however, at least as it refers to Grimes...he shouldn't have been on my "ludicrous" list...there is at least a strong traditional case to be made for his being a HOFer. So I understand his being chosen more than a number of others (Rick Ferrell?? Really?? Did that guy JDD mean Wes just like the idiots on the BBWAA who accidentally voted for the wrong Ferrell?)...but he's not making my cut.

[SavoyBG]

Bill James' evaluation of pitchers is famously screwed up because he completely failed to consider defense independent evaluation techniques.

As I've said in other discussions, I don't have a lot of faith in DIPS, and I think it's vastly overrated, especially in the case of the years when Grimes pitched. It also takes away any ability that a pitcher may or may not have to bear down and get out of jams. ERA is an excellent stat that is negated by DIPS as to now base a pitcher's effectiveness on preventing baserunners rather than preventing runs.

I just cannot agree with James on Grimes' position...I was too harsh in my wording however, at least as it refers to Grimes...he shouldn't have been on my "ludicrous" list...there is at least a strong traditional case to be made for his being a HOFer. So I understand his being chosen more than a number of others (Rick Ferrell?? Really?? Did that guy JDD mean Wes just like the idiots on the BBWAA who accidentally voted for the wrong Ferrell?)...but he's not making my cut.

Thank you, and I agree that a vote for Rick Ferrell would be beyond ludicrous.

[SABR Matt]

You are entitled to your opinion regarding DIPS...I'll stick with mine. ERA is influenced by too many external factors well beyond the pitcher's control...especially luck in the random clustering of hits (no modern studies have shown that ANY pitchers have a particular skill for "bearing down and escaping jams" at anomalously high rates...in other words...like our hundreds of attempts to find clutch hitting...we can't find clutch pitching either...which leads me to believe that is not a repeatable skill or if it is a skill...it's a very small magnitude of influence), team defense, and strength of schedule.

[jalbright]

Lately, if I'm away from this thread about half a day, I'm coming back to see either personal attacks or at least nasty backbiting and squabbling. It doesn't become any of you who participate in it, and if someone irritates you, I strongly suggest use of the "ignore" feature. If this keeps up, I'm soon going to have to start handing out suspensions, and, rest assured, I will do so. I hope that will not be necessary and that this will prove a word to the wise.

[SavoyBG]

You are entitled to your opinion regarding DIPS...I'll stick with mine. ERA is influenced by too many external factors well beyond the pitcher's control...especially luck in the random clustering of hits (no modern studies have shown that ANY pitchers have a particular skill for "bearing down and escaping jams" at anomalously high rates...in other words...like our hundreds of attempts to find clutch hitting...we can't find clutch pitching either...which leads me to believe that is not a repeatable skill or if it is a skill...it's a very small magnitude of influence), team defense, and strength of schedule.

Here's the problem with DIPS in this case. You've got two pitchers who each threw over 4,000 innings:

Ruffing - 4344
Grimes - 4179

with almost the same career ERA+

Ruffing - 109
Grimes - 107

With Grimes having the clearly better peak:

BEST 5 ERA+ YEARS
Ruffing - 149, 149, 137, 132, 131
Grimes - 166, 152, 144, 138, 136

Grimes was a very good hitting pitcher, Ruffing was an excellent hitting pitcher. I've already gone through the win share totals.

You take everything into account I think you have to rank Ruffing ahead of Grimes, but not by all that much, certainly not anywhere near as much as PCA says.

The problem with DIPS is that instead of going by what DID HAPPEN, you are now going by the DIPS speculation of WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED.

DIPS is telling us that the ERA+ numbers of 109 and 107 are not where each pitcher SHOULD HAVE BEEN if they had had the same environment for their careers. So DIPS is saying that Ruffing, who played for the greatest dynasty in the sport's history, had worse fielding behind him than Grimes, who played for bad teams for most of his career.

Grimes - 270-212 ERA+ 107
Ruffing - 273-225 ERA+ 109

Something has to be wrong with a system that has Ruffing with 50% more career value than Grimes.

[SavoyBG]

You are entitled to your opinion regarding DIPS...I'll stick with mine. ERA is influenced by too many external factors well beyond the pitcher's control...especially luck in the random clustering of hits (no modern studies have shown that ANY pitchers have a particular skill for "bearing down and escaping jams" at anomalously high rates

It doesn't take that high of a rate of getting outs more often in tough situations for a pitcher to cut his ERA by a couple tenths of a run.

I see stats all the time where a pitcher allows a significantly lower batting average (and OBP) with runners in scoring position, even over the course of several seasons. Even if he can get out 70% of the time instead of just 67% of the time, that can prevent a lot of runs over the course of a season.

[SABR Matt]

Here's the problem with DIPS in this case. You've got two pitchers who each threw over 4,000 innings:

Ruffing - 4344
Grimes - 4179

with almost the same career ERA+

Ruffing - 109
Grimes - 107

With Grimes having the clearly better peak:

BEST 5 ERA+ YEARS
Ruffing - 149, 149, 137, 132, 131
Grimes - 166, 152, 144, 138, 136

Grimes was a very good hitting pitcher, Ruffing was an excellent hitting pitcher. I've already gone through the win share totals.

You take everything into account I think you have to rank Ruffing ahead of Grimes, but not by all that much, certainly not anywhere near as much as PCA says.

The problem with DIPS is that instead of going by what DID HAPPEN, you are now going by the DIPS speculation of WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED.

DIPS is telling us that the ERA+ numbers of 109 and 107 are not where each pitcher SHOULD HAVE BEEN if they had had the same environment for their careers. So DIPS is saying that Ruffing, who played for the greatest dynasty in the sport's history, had worse fielding behind him than Grimes, who played for bad teams for most of his career.

Grimes - 270-212 ERA+ 107
Ruffing - 273-225 ERA+ 109

Something has to be wrong with a system that has Ruffing with 50% more career value than Grimes.

DIPS didn't cause that difference.

You yourself showed that the DIPS-based PCA win totals look very similar to James' win share totals...the system shows Grimes with the superior peak, Ruffing with the superior career win total and slightly superior rate stats (109 to 107 ERA+ is not as insignificant of a difference as you let on in this post...it's close, but not a tie). The career WIN VALUE generated by PCA places Ruffing ahead of Grimes by score of 80.9 pitching wins to 64.6 pitching wins. (Win Shares has the tally at 107 1/3 wins to 98 1/3 wins...so the ratio gap is slightly smaller but not by a huge margin)

The difference in HOF Marker value is caused by PCA's strong emphasis on the need to be above average for as long as possible. If you look at the bottom half of Grimes' career vs. the bottom half of Ruffing's career, you'll see why the ratio between Grimes and Ruffing gets larger...the Marker system is penalizing Grimes for having so many below average seasons, including a few that were EXTREMELY poor...while rewarding Ruffing for having very few such clunkers by comparison.

[Second Base Coach]

I do have a conduct policy here now, so let's stop the negativity that I saw earlier. Don't make me regret taking over this project because I'll put this on hiatus again if I have to. Keep this on baseball discussion and stop with the personal attacks.

There's a decent argument for Harlond Clift and I cast a vote for him. He'll likely lose it once Stan Hack is on the ballot.

I am not sure what was offensive. It was good debate with me anyway. These are passionate people.

And While Hack was probably the better player (where are the homers?), I think there is room for both in the HOF.

If Harlond had played a little longer, it would be a better comp but what else could I ask for when I have same position and same era? Same League?

[SABR Matt]

OK...I have to hear this...what is you argument for Clift?

He lasted barely long enough to qualify for the hall, his OPS+ is 116...which would be nice for a guy with a 20 year career, but not for a guy with half that longevity, and his fielding reputation and statistical record are solid but unspectacular. So make your case...I'm eager to listen. It's not like his one lost season in 1944 is going to make much of a difference...

Here's his PCA player card FWIW:

Yr	Lg	Off	Def	O-M	D-M	Wins
1938	AL	9.29	1.75	14.4	1.7	11.04
1937	AL	8.12	1.91	11.9	1.9	10.03
1940	AL	7.00	2.62	10.0	3.5	9.62
1942	AL	7.12	2.24	10.1	2.8	9.36
1936	AL	8.06	0.50	11.7	-0.8	8.56
1939	AL	6.62	1.39	9.1	1.0	8.01
1941	AL	5.47	2.30	6.5	2.8	7.77
1934	AL	4.53	0.95	4.9	0.1	5.48
1935	AL	4.85	0.61	6.1	-0.4	5.46
1945	AL	3.79	1.15	4.7	1.0	4.94
1943	AL	2.73	1.79	2.5	2.1	4.52

[SavoyBG]

DIPS didn't cause that difference.

You yourself showed that the DIPS-based PCA win totals look very similar to James' win share totals...the system shows Grimes with the superior peak, Ruffing with the superior career win total and slightly superior rate stats (109 to 107 ERA+ is not as insignificant of a difference as you let on in this post...it's close, but not a tie). The career WIN VALUE generated by PCA places Ruffing ahead of Grimes by score of 80.9 pitching wins to 64.6 pitching wins. (Win Shares has the tally at 107 1/3 wins to 98 1/3 wins...so the ratio gap is slightly smaller but not by a huge margin)

The difference in HOF Marker value is caused by PCA's strong emphasis on the need to be above average for as long as possible. If you look at the bottom half of Grimes' career vs. the bottom half of Ruffing's career, you'll see why the ratio between Grimes and Ruffing gets larger...the Marker system is penalizing Grimes for having so many below average seasons, including a few that were EXTREMELY poor...while rewarding Ruffing for having very few such clunkers by comparison.

Okay, so when you say "PCA's strong emphasis," what you actually mean is "SABR Matt's" arbitrary decision to place more importance on being above average for as long as possible. You (not the system) have made a subjective decision to put more weight on that aspect.

And this decision on your part goes against what your system emphasises, which is actual value rather than value in consecutive years, or peak value. If you believe that value in consecutive years is totally irrelevant, than I would think that you would also believe that a value that went something like this...

+ 6.7, + 7.1, - .9, + 8.3, + 4.3, - 2.1

would be just as good as a value that went like this...

+ 3.8, + 4.1, + 2.7, + 4.1 + 4.8 + 3.9

since both groups add up to a value of 23.4

But I am glad that you have now explaned this "HOF marker" thing. Your system actually ranks both players about where they should be, but your totally subjective decision as to how the HOF Marker should work is what makes Ruffing rank so much higher than Grimes.

[Second Base Coach]

Duplicate post...