Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thread for Discussion of AG2004's Keltner Lists

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Edgar Martinez - dh trouble?

    I only discovered this thread tonight. The posting dates show that it was active after I arrived here. I suppose the title had no meaning to me.

    Edgar Martinez is getting about 50% support (8 of 17 today). Do you have a way to adapt the Keltner List to a designated hitter?

    He played third base only the first three-plus of his 14 years as a premier batter.
    How was he injured in 1993 and 1996? in the field?

    According to Edgar's bb-ref sponsor, Dusty Baker called him a "professional, humble giant." Giant?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Paul Wendt View Post
      I only discovered this thread tonight. The posting dates show that it was active after I arrived here. I suppose the title had no meaning to me.

      Edgar Martinez is getting about 50% support (8 of 17 today). Do you have a way to adapt the Keltner List to a designated hitter?

      He played third base only the first three-plus of his 14 years as a premier batter.
      When I made my list for Martinez, I simply compared him to first basemen on the grounds that 1B was at the far end of the defensive spectrum for most of the 20th century. As of 2000, the worst defensive 1B with lengthy careers were Dick Stuart and Frank Thomas, and they had had difficulties in achieving a full 1.0 DWS in a season (rounding off to the nearest tenth). Thus, comparing Edgar Martinez to first basemen did not put him at a great disadvantage.

      [NOTE: I didn't realize that I hadn't copied my list for Martinez onto my main thread page when I made the above response. It was an oversight on my part.]
      Last edited by AG2004; 01-12-2008, 09:12 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Cravath "List" and side issue

        Good job compiling the side issue.
        >>
        Finally, at the beginning of 1912, a clerical error in a telegraph the Millers sent to Pittsburgh led to Cravath's being freed from his contract, and he was free to return to the major leagues.
        <<

        Does your source say Pittsburgh or may this be your clerical error? I know of this only from the entry for Cravath in the New BJHBA. James mentions both a deal with Philadelphia (the club that did get Cravath for 1912) and the telegram, not clearly a telegram to Philadelphia.

        By the way, James says that 7 mlb teams drafted Cravath in 1911. I suppose from the "Philadelphia" thing that his eligibility was compromised, maybe no longer Minneapolis clear property.

        By the way, James says everyone agrees that Gavy is derived from gaviotas (Sp. seagull).

        deleted: another sentence beginning with "by the way"
        Last edited by Paul Wendt; 01-15-2008, 10:38 PM. Reason: replace some pronouns

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Paul Wendt View Post
          Good job compiling the side issue.
          >>
          Finally, at the beginning of 1912, a clerical error in a telegraph the Millers sent to Pittsburgh led to Cravath's being freed from his contract, and he was free to return to the major leagues.
          <<

          Does your source say Pittsburgh or may this be your clerical error? I know of this only from the entry for Cravath in the New BJHBA. James mentions both a deal with Philadelphia (the club that did get Cravath for 1912) and the telegram, not clearly a telegram to Philadelphia.
          The source is Bill Swank's biography of Cravath for the SABR Baseball Biography Project.

          However, there is a place where Swank is in conflict with baseball-reference. Swank claims that the White Sox obtained Cravath in August 1908, while baseball-reference gives February 16, 1909, as the date of the transaction. I don't know which source is in error here.

          Comment


          • #35
            jjpm74 posted this with respect to AG2004's Keltner List on Bernie Williams:

            Originally posted by jjpm74
            This is a perfect example of how stat analysis is not always enough in and of itself. Bernie Williams' post season record is good on paper, but whenever he came up with the game on the line, he was a non-factor. Those years, players like Robin Ventura, Paul O'Neil and Tino Martinez were far more effective in clutch situations. There's also, of course the legend of "the toss" by Derek Jeter. Bernie had no such mystique surrounding him. I watched Bernie play every day for his entire MLB career. He was a good player but there are many players more deserving from his era. He's not even a blip on my radar for any kind of hall consideration, IMO.
            Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
            Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
            A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

            Comment


            • #36
              I'll respond to what jjpm74 had to say.

              This is a perfect example of how stat analysis is not always enough in and of itself. Bernie Williams' post season record is good on paper, but whenever he came up with the game on the line, he was a non-factor. Those years, players like Robin Ventura, Paul O'Neil and Tino Martinez were far more effective in clutch situations. There's also, of course the legend of "the toss" by Derek Jeter. Bernie had no such mystique surrounding him.
              You claim that Williams was a non-factor. What evidence, other than your mere assertion, backs up this statement?

              Let's look at the following postseason stats.

              Williams. 119 AB with RISP; 50 RBI. .42 RBI per opportunity.
              Ventura. 21 AB with RISP; 12 RBI. .57 RBI per opportunity.
              O'Neill. 68 AB with RISP; 21 RBI. .31 RBI per opportunity.
              Martinez. 80 AB with RISP; 22 RBI. .28 RBI per opportunity.

              The sample size for Ventura is very small, so it isn't necessarily the best picture of his skills. Looking further, I see that Ventura batted .200/.339/.356 in division series, .169/.316/.254 in league championship series, and .150/.190/.350 in the World Series. I am sure these are all hallmarks of a clutch player.

              Williams batted .279/.367/.497 in division series, .321/.413/.549 in LCS's, and .208/.319/.358 in the World Series. Williams' averages were better than Ventura's in all three categories.

              In this case, it seems that statistical analysis is more revealing that a sense of "mystique."

              I watched Bernie play every day for his entire MLB career. He was a good player but there are many players more deserving from his era. He's not even a blip on my radar for any kind of hall consideration, IMO.
              I know that there are more deserving players from his era. However, if you limit the Hall to the Mantles and Lajoies and Berras, you would have difficulty getting 100 players in the Hall. Given the history of the Hall of Fame, there is no justification for raising the bar to that level. If you want to set the boundary line at the level where 80 or 90% of those currently in Cooperstown would remain above the level, that's fine, since Cooperstown has made mistakes in admitting unqualified players, and some players not in the Hall would still be above those standards. However, if the standard you use would throw half of all current members out of the hall if it were currently employed, the standard would be an unrealistic one to use.

              A more relevant question is whether players whose level of play matched Bernie Williams typically end up in the Hall of Fame. From that standpoint, Williams is in the gray area; some players of that caliber end up in Cooperstown, and some don't.

              Also, it would help if I knew why Williams isn't even a blip by your standards. Is there anything more substantial than, "I don't think he was a Hall of Famer?" If your belief is based on the same evidence that lead you to believe that Paul O'Neill and Tino Martinez were better clutch players than Bernie Williams, you may want to look at other pieces of evidence.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by AG2004 View Post

                Also, it would help if I knew why Williams isn't even a blip by your standards. Is there anything more substantial than, "I don't think he was a Hall of Famer?" If your belief is based on the same evidence that lead you to believe that Paul O'Neill and Tino Martinez were better clutch players than Bernie Williams, you may want to look at other pieces of evidence.
                What evidence other than actually physically being there to see every single post season game either live (when they were in the Bronx, Queens or Boston) or on TV he was in should I be analyzing, exactly? Would you like me to break down every game play by play for you like I did for myself when formulating that opinion? Based on looking back at my box scores, Bernie's hits typically came when the game wasn't on the line. In clutch situations, there were many Yankees players who stepped up to the occasion. He was not one of them. His outs came when the game was on the line on quite a few occasions. Believe me, I'm about as big a Yankees fan there is and would really like to like Bernie as a Hall of Fame calibre player. How can I consider him when he was overshadowed even by players on his own team? If you want to consider him based on pure numbers, that is your prerogative. I'm not going to argue that. I'm also not going to make a case for someone I do not personally believe is deserving of the HOF that I actually observed play solely based on compiling career statistics.

                A more relevant question is whether players whose level of play matched Bernie Williams typically end up in the Hall of Fame. From that standpoint, Williams is in the gray area; some players of that caliber end up in Cooperstown, and some don't.
                Usually the players in the gray area Bernie belongs to who do qualify are known for some kind of major achievement. What's Bernie's big achievement that separates him from the rest of the pack?
                Last edited by jjpm74; 01-21-2008, 08:51 PM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by jjpm74 View Post
                  What evidence other than actually physically being there to see every single post season game either live (when they were in the Bronx, Queens or Boston) or on TV he was in should I be analyzing, exactly? Would you like me to break down every game play by play for you like I did for myself when formulating that opinion? Based on looking back at my box scores, Bernie's hits typically came when the game wasn't on the line.
                  This last is to be expected, as Bernie's at-bats also typically came when the game wasn't on the line. According to retrosheet's data, fewer than 20% of all at-bats come in "Late & Close" situations.

                  In clutch situations, there were many Yankees players who stepped up to the occasion. He was not one of them. His outs came when the game was on the line on quite a few occasions.
                  The last sentence is true for every player, as nobody bats 1.000. Everybody gets some outs when the game is on the line.

                  I took the retrosheet data for "Late & Close" situations, and found the postseason BA/OBP/SA in those situations for Williams and the three players above whom you called clutch.

                  Williams: .308/.380/.567
                  Ventura: .095/.095/.095
                  O'Neill: .257/.486/.371
                  Martinez: .259/.394/.389

                  Of Williams and your three "clutch" players, Williams had the highest OPS in postseason Late & Close situations.

                  If your reached the conclusion that X was a clutch player and Y wasn't based merely on observations, your conclusion may be influenced by a handful of observations instead of the entire set, compiled through a span of over a decade. If your methodology indicates that Williams was not a clutch player, I would like to see your methodology.


                  Believe me, I'm about as big a Yankees fan there is and would really like to like Bernie as a Hall of Fame calibre player. How can I consider him when he was overshadowed even by players on his own team? If you want to consider him based on pure numbers, that is your prerogative. I'm not going to argue that. I'm also not going to make a case for someone I do not personally believe is deserving of the HOF that I actually observed play solely based on compiling career statistics.
                  If he was overshadowed by others on his home team, why? Was it because they already had big reputations when they arrived with the Yankees? Was it because they stood out as the best of the league at their position, while Williams was overshadowed by Ken Griffey, Jr.? Or is it because the other players were better?

                  Let's see how win shares credits Williams for the Yankees' success.

                  1995 - First on team
                  1996 - First on team
                  1997 - Third on team (trails O'Neill, Martinez)
                  1998 - First on team
                  1999 - Second on team (trails Jeter)
                  2000 - Second on team (trails Posada)
                  2001 - Second on team (trails Jeter)
                  2002 - Second on team (trails Giambi)

                  Since usage patterns mean that top pitchers no longer contend for win shares leads (which hurts Rivera or Clemens), there may be a bit of distortion from using raw win shares totals. However, from 1995 until 2002, only Jeter had multiple seasons on the Yankees when he had more win shares than Williams, and he did it just twice. I don't know why Williams was overshadowed, but it wasn't entirely due to his performance.

                  Also, I'm not asking you to make a case for Williams. I'm asking you to make a case against Williams based on something more than "feeling" alone.

                  Usually the players in the gray area Bernie belongs to who do qualify are known for some kind of major achievement. What's Bernie's big achievement that separates him from the rest of the pack?
                  There are his postseason statistics. However, as noted in my Keltner List, I don't know which side of the fence Williams belongs. I said he was close to the border between belonging and not belonging to the BBFHOF, and that I could use a few year's perspective to be sure which side of the border he falls on.

                  You still haven't given me any reasons other than "I don't feel that he was a Hall of Famer" to indicate why Williams shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. Subjective judgments can be misleading, especially if they are based on faulty assumptions.

                  If you took a look at some of my other Keltner Lists, I lay out the data, and then come to the conclusion. Also, note that the lists indicate some negatives about players whom I find worthy of honor, and show some positives about players who don't make the cut; I'm not manipulating the data to get the result I want. Furthermore, The introduction to each list is the last part I write. Sometimes I write it to stress a point that arose while making the evaluation, or to show why two evaluations of seemingly similar players differ. However, I reserve judgment until I look at the evidence. Since I find statistical analysis helpful in coming to a conclusion, I use it.

                  If you want to convince me that I erred in my conclusion, you need to do more than say, "I don't think that's right." Other people who saw all the games you did may very well say, "Well, I think Williams is a Hall of Famer, and it's not even a close call." That's not enough, either. If you want to change my mind, you need to show some justification for your conclusion.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Disregarding Williams versus his teammates, and in looking at the Keltner List itself, it looks like Bernie is closest to Cesar Cedeno as a center fielder (at least according to win shares).

                    I loved Cedeno, thought he was a sure thing for the Hall while watching him play, but in the end he pulled up short. By the time he was 30 he was a shadow of his former self. He hasn't come close to my queue for the BBFHoF. Since I'm not ready to endorse Cedeno, Bernie, even with his grand postseasons, will have to wait.
                    "Someone asked me if I took steroids. I said, 'No. I had a contract with Wheaties.'"
                    --Bob Feller

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by 2Chance View Post
                      Disregarding Williams versus his teammates, and in looking at the Keltner List itself, it looks like Bernie is closest to Cesar Cedeno as a center fielder (at least according to win shares).
                      True, as far as the win share answers in question 7 go.

                      I was responding above to jjpm's specific points - points for which, I might add, he failed to provide any evidence for. If it hadn't been for his comments about Williams being overshadowed, I wouldn't have given the Bernie vs. Teammates list.

                      I loved Cedeno, thought he was a sure thing for the Hall while watching him play, but in the end he pulled up short. By the time he was 30 he was a shadow of his former self. He hasn't come close to my queue for the BBFHoF. Since I'm not ready to endorse Cedeno, Bernie, even with his grand postseasons, will have to wait.
                      I do see a difference between Williams and Cedeno. Williams had nine All-Star-type seasons, while Cedeno had just seven.

                      Earl Averill had 280 career win shares, while Kirby Puckett had 281. The career gap was just a little too wide for them to fit onto my "Career comparables" list. However, Averill had ten All-Star-type seasons, while Puckett equals Williams in this category with nine.

                      I do give significant weight to questions 11 and 12, which, for position players, deal with seasons of 30+ and 20+ win shares (after schedule length adjustments), respectively. When I combine them with win shares totals, I think Williams is closer to Averill and Puckett than he is to Cedeno.

                      Nice comment, however.
                      Last edited by jalbright; 01-24-2008, 12:44 PM. Reason: fixed quote tag

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Transferring freakshow's comment in the Keltner List thread to the discussion thread:

                        Originally posted by Freakshow
                        McVey's play in 1869-70 should be included in his career value. He started for the very best team of the day and was a star.
                        Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
                        Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
                        A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          --Another question on McVey. Is it really likely he wasn't playing playball 1881-84? He had been playing the game for a living for 13 years up to that point. He was playing again in 1885 and moved again to Texas to continue playing at the end of the decade. It seems unlikely he just stepped away from the game for 4 years. I'd wager it is more likely a gap in our knowledge than a gap in his career. Of course, he was probably playing at a lower level.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I doubt the Texas League record. In his TexL volume The Texas League in Baseball 1888-1958 (McFarland), Marshall Wright dubs the 1888 N.O. player George McVey and the 1889-1890 F.W. player Carl McVey. This isn't gospel truth but it is counterevidence.

                            Cal(vin) was 38-41 years old in 1888-90. Wouldn't he be a team manager and playing first base if present at all? He lost his house in the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, so this would have been a temporary venture to Texas. "George" play only 9 of 27 games in 1888. Turnover was high but 11 men played more (hey, William Joyce, 7g). "Carl" led the 1889 league in games and atbats with 65 steals --old-fashioned steals but that is baserunning. The league went out of business mid-1890 with "Carl" at .167(*) but 18 steals, easy team leader, and 29 runs scored, team second. Batting averages were low, only three regulars and one sub above .220, among 16 players Wright lists, but "Carl" was scoring more than the other Mendozen.
                            Carl F.W. 1889-90 doesn't seem to be a 40/41 year old man and George N.O. 1888 seems local, not a famous old mercenary.

                            Frederick Ivor-Campbell, in the Nineteenth Century Stars (SABR, 1989) entry on McVey, says "For a decade McVey organized, managed, and played for clubs in California before retiring from baseball." Not gospel truth but more counterevidence. Ivor-Campbell is also the source on 1906 earthquake.

                            caveats
                            - There is some evidence against McVey's 1880s baseball career in his Hall of Merit thread
                            - Ivor-Campbell notes that McVey moved to theh greener infields of California which he knew from the Cincinnati Red Stockings 1869 tour. He also knew New Orleans from the Red Stockings tours
                            - McVey also suffered "a 30-foot fall into a Nevada mine in 1913", age 63/64. Mining or touring, he may have been in excellent condition. Maybe he was a speedy runner at 40.
                            Last edited by Paul Wendt; 02-01-2008, 04:26 PM. Reason: correct reference to TexL volume

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by leecemark View Post
                              --Another question on McVey. Is it really likely he wasn't playing playball 1881-84? He had been playing the game for a living for 13 years up to that point. He was playing again in 1885 and moved again to Texas to continue playing at the end of the decade. It seems unlikely he just stepped away from the game for 4 years. I'd wager it is more likely a gap in our knowledge than a gap in his career. Of course, he was probably playing at a lower level.
                              Paul Wendt just added that the Texas League McVeys might be two different players, neither of which is our Cal McVey. I don't have access to the references he used without relying on interlibrary loan. My source for McVey playing in the Texas League was from the League's official website itself:

                              http://www.texas-league.com/pagebank/?id=662

                              1881-84 could represent a gap in knowledge. To play it safe, I'll treat it as McVey being out of baseball until I'm shown otherwise. With better information available, I could change my mind.

                              -----

                              We also have Freakshow's comment:
                              "McVey's play in 1869-70 should be included in his career value. He started for the very best team of the day and was a star."

                              He started for the Reds, but he wasn't a star on the team. I copied some information on early stars from Marshall Wright's The National Association of Base Ball Players, 1857-1870 a few years ago, and this was his data on McVey:

                              1868 – Played for Active (Indianapolis),7-8
                              Competition: Mainly Indianapolis and Cincinnati; two eastern teams.
                              Position: P-2B-3B
                              Runs – 68 in 13 games; led team in runs; second in runs average.
                              Outs – 2.31 per game

                              1869 – Played for Cincinnati (Cincinnati), 57-0, 19-0 vs. pros
                              Competiton: East and Midwest; 5 games in San Francisco
                              Position: OF
                              Runs – 262 in 57 games (third on team; G. Wright 339, Fred Waterman 293)
                              Hits – 217 (fifth on team)
                              Total Bases – 348 (sixth on team)
                              Outs – 2.56 per game

                              1870 – Played for Cincinnati (Cincinnati), 67-6-1, 27-6-1 vs. pros (best pro team)
                              Competition: National
                              Position: OF
                              Hits – 262 in 72 games. Average of 3.63 per game was third best on team (G. Wright 4.27, Waterman 3.86)
                              Total Bases – 389. Average of 5.40 per game was sixth best on team (G. Wright 7.08, Waterman 5.75, Leonard 5.70)
                              Asa Brainerd was Cincinnati's worst hitter, but he was also the team's pitcher, so that makes him a key player. As far as the position players go, McVey seems to have been a below-average hitter by the team's standards (not necessarily the first NA's). McVey was also the team's right fielder in 1869, and RF was the position with the least defensive value at that time.

                              Furthermore, there were twelve recognized professional teams in the NABBP in 1869, which means that the talent level was more diluted than that of the NL about a decade later. In addition, Cincinnati signed him partly because he played well with Active when the two teams met in 1868; if Active had not played Cincinnati, would McVey have had to wait a while?

                              McVey deserves some credit for his play in the NABBP. However, even now, how often does a championship club have six different position players at an All-Star-type (20+ win shares) level? Considering the state of development that the game was in, being the sixth or seventh best position player on a pro club in 1869 or 1870 isn't worth all that much.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                --The Reds weren't just a championship club though - they were undefeated. I think its safe to say there was an unpresedented concentration of talent on that team. If the 5th ot 6th best player on the 1927 Yankees can be regarded as a star (and 6 of them did go on the Cooperstown) then why not the same for a MUCH more dominating team (albeit in an admittedly less organized time where most of their opponents probably only had a handfull of MLB quality talent and some probably had none).

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X