Tiered HOF

[leecemark]

--Do you think Fergie Jenkins thinks he was as good as Walter Johnson? Do you think Phil Rizzuto thinks he was the 2nd coming of Honus Wagner? Everybody already knows some Hall of famers are (much) better than others. I wouldn't support multiple tiers because putting some in the bottom tier actively dishonors a player who is supposed to be being honored. Giving an even higher honor to the true Legends of the Game doesn't do that though. Although, I suppose the guys who just miss the extra honor might feel slighted.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

The fact Sandberg can hit like that from a defensive position makes him extremely valuable.

I agree Chris. By the way, you still haven't posted his splits. Leads me to believe they're actually as bad or worse than I thought

Regarding this comment, he would not have been the player he was without the field's help. So his value came from A)His park B)His position which technically has nothing to do with hitting. He was a solid player for sure but just how much was he aided. Would he have taken the same hittng approach if he had a different home park? Who knows.

[538280]

Ryne Sandberg
Home-.300 .361 .491
Away-.269 .326 .412

Those are his splits. I give little credence to home/road splits, so they don't really matter to me, but make of them what you want.

[digglahhh]

I. So his value came from A)His park B)His position which technically has nothing to do with hitting. He was a solid player for sure but just how much was he aided. Would he have taken the same hittng approach if he had a different home park? Who knows.

I agree, but I doubt Chris will.

This is a big part of the greatness vs. value debate. Relative dominance over your position is value. True dominance over your entire league, or over history- for some, is greatness.

This notion is what causes me to have a difficult time with cases for guys like Jeff Kent. By position value- sure HOFer. By overall value, not really. I admit that I am probably not consistent when applying these qualifications and perhaps I even use them to reinforce my prejudices. But, hey its all too human.

In trying to keep it all in perspective one of the things I try to do is take defensive quality into consideration. Kent is not a good defensive 2B, so I don't give him a full a positional adjustment. Sandberg was good enough defensively to merit a bigger "adjustment." Basically, I try to split the difference.

Catcher is the exception because the act of playing the position puts such a strain on your body that it actually reduces your ability to produce offensively. By offensive value in relation the defensive position, Mike Piazza might be able to make an argument for being the most valuable offensive player ever. But even if he was DHing, he wouldn't have been as good as Ted Williams, so he can't be the "greatest."

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Ryne Sandberg
Home-.300 .361 .491
Away-.269 .326 .412

Those are his splits. I give little credence to home/road splits, so they don't really matter to me, but make of them what you want.

Chris, you're so thorough about every other player. You'll pick them apart down to the last minor adjustment or factor. Yet with Ryno you let down your guard and accept what he's feeding you? That's a huge split for an entire career, my lordy. What about his OPS, HR, RBI, all that other good stuff. Do you have those splits too?

If you don't give credence to splits, then how do you explain this. Do you give credence in extreme cases like Ott? I've seen you point out that Reggie's park was tough to hit in. If you don't care about splits or park factor, then why bother mentioning that?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I agree, but I doubt Chris will.

This is a big part of the greatness vs. value debate. Relative dominance over your position is value. True dominance over your entire league, or over history- for some, is greatness.

This notion is what causes me to have a difficult time with cases for guys like Jeff Kent. By position value- sure HOFer. By overall value, not really. I admit that I am probably not consistent when applying these qualifications and perhaps I even use them to reinforce my prejudices. But, hey its all too human.

In trying to keep it all in perspective one of the things I try to do is take defensive quality into consideration. Kent is not a good defensive 2B, so I don't give him a full a positional adjustment. Sandberg was good enough defensively to merit a bigger "adjustment." Basically, I try to split the difference.

Catcher is the exception because the act of playing the position puts such a strain on your body that it actually reduces your ability to produce offensively. By offensive value in relation the defensive position, Mike Piazza might be able to make an argument for being the most valuable offensive player ever. But even if he was DHing, he wouldn't have been as good as Ted Williams, so he can't be the "greatest."

I tend to agree with you. I just have a very hard time buying into positional adjustments, large era adjustments, and even have an issue with someones relative stats. But much like you, I'm willing to consider them at times. Nothing is ruled out.

Catcher is really the only positional adjustment that I buy into, basically because like you said, it has a direct impact on your offense when played correctly and taken seriously off the field. Having said that, a guy can't just strap on a mask, be a horrible catcher, hit very good, and expect to be bumped past great all around players.

For example, as good as he is defensively, Ivan wouldn't get as large a positional boost toward offense, as say a Mike Leiberthal, or Brad Ausmus, or even Javy Lopez. Catching is not only about having a great arm and blocking the ball, but about things off the field which scream "unselfishness." That to me, is where the true adjustment comes from, aside from the normal wear and tear. It's mental. When you work with the pitchers like you should, and look out for their success as much as your own, then you're truly a catcher. Not sure completely, but Piazza always seemed to be more concerned with his offense than being an actual catcher. No argument could be made to put him that high up based on catching alone.

[leecemark]

--Piazza has always been a hard working catcher, he just isn't gifted with great defensive tools - although its his weak arm that is the main issue and gets all the attention. His pitchers have never had anything but good things to say about his preparation and game calling.
--Unfortunately, there is a strong bias at the "defense first" positions against good hitters. Most of the time a good hitter catcher or SS will get underrated on defense and their flaws are unduely magnified. OTOH, a catcher or SS who can't hit is almost automatically assumed to be a top defender (why else would he be on the team?). Some of those non-hitting catcher are just lousy all around ballplayers who have a job because...well you have to have somebody back there and there aren't enough good catchers to go around.

[538280]

Chris, you're so thorough about every other player. You'll pick them apart down to the last minor adjustment or factor. Yet with Ryno you let down your guard and accept what he's feeding you? That's a huge split for an entire career, my lordy. What about his OPS, HR, RBI, all that other good stuff. Do you have those splits too?

Just to let you know for future reference, Retrosheet has home/road, left/right, Day/Night, pretty much any kind of splits you want since 1959. Just go there if you want splits for a player like Sandberg. Here's a link to Sandberg's page:

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/Psandr001.htm

You can find all that other stuff you want there.

If you don't give credence to splits, then how do you explain this. Do you give credence in extreme cases like Ott? I've seen you point out that Reggie's park was tough to hit in. If you don't care about splits or park factor, then why bother mentioning that?

Let me explain this very carefully, because I've taken a lot of heat for this in other places. I don't give NO credence to splits whatsoever. I realize they can tell us something. For example, Eddie Yost through 1953 in his career had hit 52 home runs on the road and 3 at home. That tells you the park was just killing him, and no matter how much he tried to adjust he couldn't. Sandy Koufax in 1965 had an ERA a full run higher on the road. That tells you his succes had tons to do with Dodger Stadium.

But, I have a problem with splits in a few instances:

1.Joe Morgan, when he was with the Astros at the beginning of his career, always did better at the Astrodome than he did on the road. In the past, other members have said that the Astrodome helped Morgan. I find this to be ludicrous, simply because the Astrodome was one of the toughest parks to hit in in the league, and everyone knew it. The fact Morgan did better at home means either A)He did a great job adusting his approach to the park, or B)He just felt more comfortable being at home. The crowd was on his side, he got to sleep in his own bed the previous day, he was probaby just in a comfort zone. On the road he may be tired from a long day of travelling.

2.Though if a player does do much better at home, it does suggest the home park is helping him, even if there is a very extreme split is doesn't mean the road split is how the player would have done in a neutral park. Through history, the home team has won about 55% of their games, that would suggest players usually do about 5% better at home than they do on the road. I think people don't realize this, and expect a player to do the same at home as they do on the road.

I don't think home/road splits are meaningless, but I have a problem with the way many use them. I think you're much better adjusting a player's numbers with a park factor than using a home/road split.

[Appling]

The TOP-tier is already there!

The First Ballot Hall of Famers.

Anything else is disrespectful to other Hall of Famers!

I agree. In fact, there seems to be THREE TIERS of HOF recognition.

1. First Ballot by BBWAA
2. Later ballot by BBWAA
3. After BBWAA eligibility has expired (Veteran's committee, etc.)

I would include in the Top Tier those players not elected on the first ballot but before the "five-year wait" rule was established. Like DiMaggio.

But 538280 offers a great list in the initial post of this thread!

[538280]

.
But 538280 offers a great list in the initial post of this thread!

Thanks. But no one else wants to try separating the Hall into tiers, like I did? I'd like to see how it would look from another person's perspective.

[iPod]

Double counted Marichal.