Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thread for Discussion of AG2004's Keltner Lists

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

  • leewileyfan
    replied
    Since this has been a very long thread containing several long posts and deep contexts, my question is simple:

    Why does Cecil Travis merit such a total lack of respect?

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Wendt
    replied
    Perez, Cepeda

    Perez and Cepeda are featured at Keltner Lists, page 3. See the second and third pages #52-53.

    from Tony Perez #52
    8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

    Perez has a black ink total of 0. That’s very bad. He has a gray ink total of 129 (136th overall). That would be fairly good, considering the majority of it came while he was still playing third. He’s at 40.7 in HOF Standards, which is good for 140th overall. That is around the borderline for position players.
    Perez played thirdbase only five seasons 1967-71. Earning the majority of his grey ink (for batting) during that time makes me wonder how the best three and all five of those seasons stand compare with the peak win shares ratings of thirdbasemen.


    from Orlando Cepeda #53
    Cepeda insisted on playing first base during his years in San Francisco. As McCovey came up with the Giants at the same time Cepeda did, this meant that the team platooned McCovey for a few seasons, then stuck him in the outfield, even though Cepeda would probably have been a better defensive outfielder than McCovey was. That hurt the team.

    CONCLUSION: Orlando Cepeda might have barely made my queue based on his numbers alone. However, his insistence on playing first may have cost the Giants a pennant in 1964. By putting McCovey on the bench more than he should have been, it forced them into a playoff for the 1962 pennant; the extra playoff games, in turn, could have cost the Giants the World Series (which the Yankees won in seven games). Cepeda deserves to be penalized for that.
    McCovey played in the field only at firstbase 1959-61 (259 games in all roles); mainly in the outfield 1962-64 (373 g, all roles); only at firstbase thereafter.

    Cepeda played only at first 1958 (147 g); about equally at outfield and first 1959-61 (210 g and 290 g); mainly at first 1962-64 (449 g).

    Al Dark managed the Giants 1961-64 so McCovey in the outfield seems at a glance to match his tenure. Cepeda played mainly as a pinch-hitter in 1965, and did not play at all between May 3 and Aug 18. Through May 3 he played five times as PH, twice at 1B. Those two games were Aug 30 and May 1, games 16 and 17 for the team. That daily log fits a preseason injury and also fits a decision by Al Dark's successor Herman Franks to play McCovey at first ahead of Cepeda. Which is the truth?

    Bill Rigney managed the Giants 1959-60, immediately preceding Dark. He put Cepeda in the outfield when both big men played, never McCovey in the outfield. This suggests that refusing to play the outfield is something Cepeda pulled on the new manager, and not before his first season. Perhaps it was something they negotiated during the 1961 season; Cepeda played at firstbase primarily during the second half.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pete Rose Rounding Third
    replied
    Could you do a list on Johnny Damon? It seems the opinion in his thread is divided between those that think "JD shouldn't get into the HOF even if he pulls off a very rare feat" on the one hand and "how do you keep a guy with 3000 H and 2000 RS out, even if the rest of his resume is dim" on the other.

    I tend to think that a Keltner List would kind of show the center of Damon's career.

    Leave a comment:


  • AG2004
    replied
    Originally posted by RuthMayBond View Post
    Speculative, and I'm not sure Newk was the caliber of Ford
    How many top pitchers of the time who also had impressive fastballs as young players weren't in the majors by 21? Newcombe wasn't, but the white pitchers with great fastballs that I looked at were. Among such pitchers in James' top 100, I didn't see an exception to "in the majors by 21." That indicates that, had Newcombe been white, he would also have been in the majors by 21, since he also had the great fastball.

    <Newcombe also gets some military credit. Usually, pitchers don't lose any career value by serving in the military, since the service kept arms from overuse. What they lose in the service, they make up at the end of their career. However, Newcombe's career came to an early end because of alcoholism, not arm trouble.>

    Isn't that his own fault?
    I'm not giving credit for what Newcombe would have done had he not been an alcoholic. I'm giving credit for what Newcombe would have done had he not been in the military.

    The argument for not giving pitchers military credit is that their career value would have been the same anyway had they not served. This isn't the case with Newcombe; his alcoholism would have ended his career in 1960 even if he hadn't served in the military. Since the premise doesn't apply to Newcombe, the conclusion -- that he shouldn't get military credit -- doesn't apply, either.

    <This gives Newcombe more career value and more big years than Stieb.>

    Number of years with ERA+ > 132
    Newcombe-never
    Stieb-five
    Newcombe did contribute with his bat, both when he was pitching and when he made the occasional appearance as a pinch-hitter. Win shares gives him credit for that. Both Newcombe and Stieb recorded five years with 20+ win shares, but Newcombe lost one or two such additional years due to military service.

    Leave a comment:


  • AG2004
    replied
    Originally posted by RuthMayBond View Post
    I have a few questions about the questions

    1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

    How does one determine this?
    If one wins several MVP awards, or gets several first-place votes in MVP voting over a few consecutive seasons, that's a good sign. If we can find quotes from people knowledgeable about the game, that helps.

    For most players, this question isn't very important. However, I find it useful for some very early players. Also, if a player finishes in the top two or three in MVP voting in consecutive years, that can help an otherwise borderline candidate; it indicates that contemporaries saw something in him. If that something is fielding -- where statistical analysis is not well developed -- I give the player in question a break.

    6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

    This is going to apply to a grand total of one or two players?
    There are several ways that people define "best," so several different players could get a "yes" in response to this question. In some cases, I've noted that, while I don't consider the player in question the best outside the BBFHOF, I can see where someone with a different set of standards can believe that player has a case for being the best outside the Hall.

    I believe Bill James included this question as a way to keep arguments that a player belongs honest. There have been polls here (and elsewhere) with short arguments about why a player belongs, and a superficial case can be made for many players. This question serves as a check on that tendency.

    7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

    Are similarity scores the best comparison?
    I post the similarity scores as a reference, but if a player is better or worse than his "most similar players," I note that.

    I prefer to use peak and career win shares in determining who the similar players really are. Win shares are statistics, too.

    8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

    Are Black Ink and Gray Ink "Hall of Fame standards?
    They are one type of standards. I also list Gold Gloves, Win Share Gold Gloves, and Hall of Merit membership here.

    I don't consider this question as one of the more important ones; it plays a role in borderline cases when I evaluate players. Other people may give this question more weight.

    14. Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

    How many will this apply to?
    Not many, but it's a question I give less weight to. However, players who do change the game for the better should receive some credit.

    Bruce Sutter is one example. He's close to the line based purely on performance. However, as far as I've been able to determine, Sutter perfected the split-fingered fastball. That's part of what he did as a player, and that moves him off the fence and onto my deserving list.

    15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

    And the Hall of Fame actually follows these?
    Not always. Cooperstown won't induct players on MLB's permanently ineligible list, and I don't see those players as worthy of BBFHOF honors, either. If you deliberately throw games, you're doing the exact opposite of what you're paid to do, and I won't vote for you.

    In some cases, character and sportsmanship does harm teams, even if it doesn't show in a player's statistics. For example, While Orlando Cepeda was with the Giants, he would often insist on playing first and refuse to play elsewhere, even when the coaches and manager wanted him to play elsewhere. In practice, this meant replacing Willie McCovey at first with a lesser player at another position. This would lead to losses, and, given how the Giants lost several pennants by narrow margins, Cepeda's stubbornness may have cost his team a pennant or two. Why shouldn't he be penalized for that? Orlando Cepeda is another borderline player; the character issue and its effects pushed him off of my deserving list.

    There are different ways to produce answers to the questions, and one can place more value on some questions than on others. I have found that the Keltner List questions are a good framework for analyzing players. I might as well post my answers, and some people might find the information useful.

    Leave a comment:


  • RuthMayBond
    replied
    Originally posted by jalbright View Post
    This is a reminder to please post your questions and comments on AG2004's Keltner Lists to this thread, rather than in the Keltner List thread itself. Instead of moving such comments or questions of repeat offenders, I may simply delete them. Please act accordingly. Thank you.
    My bad :dismay::choke:

    Leave a comment:


  • RuthMayBond
    replied
    Originally posted by AG2004 View Post
    It's close.

    I give Newcombe credit for some early seasons lost to racism. Young white pitchers of his caliber and era were usually bonus babies, and went directly to the bigs; others made early debuts. People such as Wynn, Roberts and Ford were already in the bigs by the time they were 21;
    Speculative, and I'm not sure Newk was the caliber of Ford

    <Newcombe also gets some military credit. Usually, pitchers don't lose any career value by serving in the military, since the service kept arms from overuse. What they lose in the service, they make up at the end of their career. However, Newcombe's career came to an early end because of alcoholism, not arm trouble.>

    Isn't that his own fault?

    <This gives Newcombe more career value and more big years than Stieb.>

    Number of years with ERA+ > 132
    Newcombe-never
    Stieb-five

    Leave a comment:


  • jalbright
    replied
    This is a reminder to please post your questions and comments on AG2004's Keltner Lists to this thread, rather than in the Keltner List thread itself. Instead of moving such comments or questions of repeat offenders, I may simply delete them. Please act accordingly. Thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • RuthMayBond
    replied
    Originally posted by AG2004 View Post
    I'm posting this ...
    I have a few questions about the questions

    1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

    How does one determine this?

    6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

    This is going to apply to a grand total of one or two players?

    7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

    Are similarity scores the best comparison?

    8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

    Are Black Ink and Gray Ink "Hall of Fame standards?

    Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

    How many will this apply to?

    15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

    And the Hall of Fame actually follows these?

    Leave a comment:


  • AG2004
    replied
    Originally posted by RuthMayBond View Post
    Is #1 contradictory with your intro and #3?

    < 10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?

    No. Don Newcombe and Bucky Walters would be better pitchers outside the BBFHOF, but Stieb is close.>

    Newcombe better than Stieb?
    It's close.

    I give Newcombe credit for some early seasons lost to racism. Young white pitchers of his caliber and era were usually bonus babies, and went directly to the bigs; others made early debuts. People such as Wynn, Roberts and Ford were already in the bigs by the time they were 21; Newcombe had to wait until he was 23. The people at Baseball Think Factory have major league projections for his minor league seasons; I give him that credit for 1947, 1948, and early 1949.

    Newcombe also gets some military credit. Usually, pitchers don't lose any career value by serving in the military, since the service kept arms from overuse. What they lose in the service, they make up at the end of their career. However, Newcombe's career came to an early end because of alcoholism, not arm trouble. Since his major league career would have ended around 1960 even if he hadn't been in the military, Newcombe gets military credit.

    This gives Newcombe more career value and more big years than Stieb. They had similar peak values (Newcombe's was interrupted by military service and a bad year in his first season back), and Stieb has the peak advantage due to era, but Newcombe's career moves him ahead on my list.

    Leave a comment:


  • jjpm74
    replied
    Great analysis of Stieb.

    Whenever you get a chance, I'd be interested in seeing a Keltner on Bob Elliott.

    Leave a comment:


  • RuthMayBond
    replied
    Originally posted by dgarza View Post
    The way I understand, #1 is based on contemporaries' opinions at the time, while #3 is based on stats/numbers.
    OK, but I'm guessing *somebody* suggested Stieb was the best pitcher at some point.
    Even somebody who knew baseball

    Leave a comment:


  • dgarza
    replied
    Originally posted by RuthMayBond View Post
    Is #1 contradictory with your intro and #3?
    The way I understand, #1 is based on contemporaries' opinions at the time, while #3 is based on stats/numbers.

    Leave a comment:


  • RuthMayBond
    replied
    Originally posted by AG2004 View Post
    I decided to do a Keltner List for Dave Stieb.

    Leading AL starters in win shares each year for four consecutive years (1982-85) is an impressive feat.

    Case to Consider: STIEB, Dave

    1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

    No.

    3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

    He led all starting pitchers in the AL in win shares in 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985, and all major league pitchers in 1982 and 1984. He was among the top five starters in the majors in win shares each season from 1981 to 1985.
    Is #1 contradictory with your intro and #3?

    < 10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?

    No. Don Newcombe and Bucky Walters would be better pitchers outside the BBFHOF, but Stieb is close.>

    Newcombe better than Stieb?

    Leave a comment:


  • jalbright
    replied
    Posted in the Keltner list thread:

    Originally posted by Steven Gallanter

    Originally posted by AG2004 View Post
    [NOTE: Originally posted October 25, 2006. Sutton was voted into the BBFHOF in the November 2006 election.]

    Of the eight people mentioned in post 356 [of the main BBFHOF discussion thread] as having a high percentage of the vote, there were three who weren't on my September ballot. I have posted Keltner Lists for Bobby Doerr (who misses my queue) and Cannonball Dick Redding (who makes my queue, but not my ballot).

    After making a Keltner list for Don Sutton, I now believe that he belongs on my ballot.

    Case to Consider: SUTTON, Don

    1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

    No.

    2. Was he the best player on his team?

    During the early 1970s, he was the Dodgers’ best pitcher.

    3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

    No.

    4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

    Yes.

    5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?

    Most definitely.

    6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

    No.

    7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

    By similarity scores, the most comparable pitchers are: Gaylord Perry, Bert Blyleven, Steve Carlton, Phil Niekro, Tom Seaver, Tommy John, Warren Spahn, Ferguson Jenkins, Greg Maddux, and Early Wynn. Eight are members of the BBFHOF, while Maddux is still active (and would be a lock if he retired today). However, Sutton’s ERA+ of 107 is above only Wynn’s 106; John is at 110, while everyone else is at 115 or higher.

    Contemporary P, Career WS: Bert Blyleven 339, Nolan Ryan 334, Ferguson Jenkins 323, Bob Gibson 320, SUTTON 318, Jim Palmer 313, Tommy John 289. Sutton is in good company here.

    Contemporary P, Best three seasons: Luis Tiant 79, Vida Blue 77, Bert Blyleven 75, Mickey Lolich 75, Nolan Ryan 74, Jim Kaat 70, SUTTON 67, Rick Reuschel 66, Tommy John 61. Sutton doesn’t make it here.

    Contemporary P, Best five consecutive seasons: Steve Carlton 111, Mickey Lolich 111, Louis Tiant 108, Nolan Ryan 102, SUTTON 99, Vida Blue 96, Rick Reuschel 95, Jim Kaat 88. Sutton isn’t in HOF company here, either.

    8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

    Sutton’s black ink score of 8 is very, very low. However, his gray ink score of 240 is 23rd all-time. His HOF Standards score of 58.0 is 19th.

    Sutton has been inducted into Cooperstown.

    9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

    Those years at Dodger Stadium certainly helped. On the other hand, he was one of the first top pitchers to be in a five-man rotation (with the Dodgers in 1972), which would lower his season totals enough for him to suffer with those pitchers still in a four-man rotation.

    10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?

    Not in my opinion.

    11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

    He was fifth in Cy Young voting 3 times, fourth once, and third once. He was second in the NL in WS among starters in 1973 and 1980.

    12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?

    Sutton played in four All-Star games, which is low for a pitcher.

    He was among the top four in NL starters in win shares in 1972, 1973, and 1980. He was fifth in 1976. In 1982, his 17 WS would have put him in a tie for sixth had he been in either major league for the whole season.

    13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

    The team could win the pennant with Sutton as its best pitcher.

    14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

    Sutton is seventh in career innings pitched, seventh in career strikeouts, third in career games started, tenth in career shutouts. He is also known for never missing a start in 23 seasons of play.

    15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

    I think so.

    CONCLUSION: I’m not sure exactly how to adjust for number of people in a starting rotation, but I doubt Sutton could close the gap in peak value against his BBFHOF contemporaries if I made those adjustments. However, giving him 10 or 11% extra credit for 1972, 1973, 1975, and 1976 (when the Dodgers were using the five-men rotation and most other teams were using a four-man rotation) would boost his peak enough to rank with the best contemporaries who aren’t in the BBFHOF. Combine it with his career value, and I think Sutton is in.
    I have had the pleasure of lis tening to Don Sutton many times on TBS.

    Sutton has many times expounded the virtues of scuffed balls, K-Y jelly and pitching in front of the rubber.

    Sutton is arguable more of a cheater than Gaylord Perry.

    Furthermore Sutton got into a physical fight with Steve Garvey in; I believe, 1978.

    Finally, he referred to himself as "the most loyal player money could buy".

    I don't have a problem with any of this but to say that Sutton "upheld the standards" of the HOF is laughable.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X