Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What do the BBWAA use???

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

  • What do the BBWAA use???

    Does anyone know what criteria the BBWAA use for election to the Hall?
    There are no magic numbers or plateaus.

    I do not know what they use.
    I think they would be like MOST people, remembering the player and vote whether he was a dominant force, the best at his postion, when he played.

    I am willing to bet that hardly any, perhaps none, get out the Baseball Encyclopedia or go out and look-up/figure/use Sabermetrics!

    To those that use career totals and Sabermetrics to confirm almost everything it seems, if that helps you, go for it.
    It doesn't help the rest of us though who don't understand and don't care about blah-blah + and Winshares. Can you please just give your opinion, your remembrance, your thoughts some times.
    Numbers are ok, and if they help you form an opinion, great.
    Thought and opinion are what really matter.
    Can you share yours without all the digits?

    Thanks.
    1968 and 1984, the greatest ever.

  • #2
    There is no set criteria the voters use. But the numbers can be used as a gauge to decide who was worthy and who was not. Voters robably use a combination of things, what they saw, what the numbers say, to determine who they vote for.
    Dave Bill Tom George Mark Bob Ernie Soupy Dick Alex Sparky
    Joe Gary MCA Emanuel Sonny Dave Earl Stan
    Jonathan Neil Roger Anthony Ray Thomas Art Don
    Gates Philip John Warrior Rik Casey Tony Horace
    Robin Bill Ernie JEDI

    Comment


    • #3
      Can everyone please stop using numbers? They're bothering Tigerfan!

      Just giving ya a hard time...but baseball is, more than any other sport, a game of numbers. Without career totals, how would we really know who's a Hall of Famer? I mean, I'm not sure the BBWAA guys use any of the new fancy stats, but I imagine they look up a guys career numbers, MVP's, awards, playoff stats, etc. Otherwise, what would they base their votes on? Reputation and a few times they saw them in person?

      I agree sabermetrics isn't everything, but I don't see the point of asking people not to use them because you don't like them.
      Visit my card site at Mike D's Baseball Card Page.

      Comment


      • #4
        my understanding is that a select group of baseball writers are eligible to vote in the hall of fame election - i don't even believe that they meet to discuss the matter - so being that writers tend to be people and people tend to do whatever the hell they want - the criteria is extremely subjective and changes from person to person - the only hope is that by requiring 75% of the vote some measure of objectivity is achieved - however all eligible players must have played in at least ten seasons

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Tigerfan1974

          I do not know what they use.
          I think they would be like MOST people, remembering the player and vote whether he was a dominant force, the best at his postion, when he played.
          Like when you "remembered" Frank Thomas and said that he's not any good, and nowhere near the HOF, while you did the same for Mickey Lolich and said he's a HOFer?

          Whatever. If others using numbers bothers you so much, feel free to leave the site. No one's forcing you to listen to it.

          Comment


          • #6
            The BBWAA uses no criteria other than their personal opinion. Having said that I can guarantee you that more and more of them are using objective tools to evaluate players. Just read the articles that are being written by the writers who publish their votes and how they came to that conclusion. And that percentage will keep growing.
            Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by 538280
              Like when you "remembered" Frank Thomas and said that he's not any good, and nowhere near the HOF, while you did the same for Mickey Lolich and said he's a HOFer?

              Whatever. If others using numbers bothers you so much, feel free to leave the site. No one's forcing you to listen to it.
              You can disagree with him all you'd like, Chris, but advising someone to leave when all they asked was a simple question is well over the line. Please refrain from doing that.
              Dave Bill Tom George Mark Bob Ernie Soupy Dick Alex Sparky
              Joe Gary MCA Emanuel Sonny Dave Earl Stan
              Jonathan Neil Roger Anthony Ray Thomas Art Don
              Gates Philip John Warrior Rik Casey Tony Horace
              Robin Bill Ernie JEDI

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by 538280
                Like when you "remembered" Frank Thomas and said that he's not any good, and nowhere near the HOF, while you did the same for Mickey Lolich and said he's a HOFer?

                Whatever. If others using numbers bothers you so much, feel free to leave the site. No one's forcing you to listen to it.
                It doesn't bother me.
                But when some posts have line after line to make an argument, and that is all the argument is, is lines of numbers, I think it is very confusing.

                Baseball is numbers, Yes.
                755 means something. 56 game streak is something.
                But getting lost in numbers and trying to make comparisons allowing for parks and dead balls and etc. leaves me in a quandry.

                I remember a comic stirp where 2 little boys are discussing websites using the numeric and symbol references, something like ' did you see abc/123.$%^.xyz site?' Instead they could say, ' I went to the comicstrips.com site and saw this funny thing.'
                The same could be said for things like sabermetrics and stats in general.
                'John Doe has a ODP+ of XXX and Winshares of YYY and etc.'
                Isn't it more about 'remember when Fisk hit that home run in the WS and he is willing it to stay fair?' or 'Remember when Willie made that over the shoulder running catch and then spun and threw it in?'

                IMO, it is things like that that makes a HoFer!
                Was he outstanding? Was he the best at the time?
                It should be on individual achievement, not comparison to other players or other times/circumstances.
                Stats can be a reference, but maybe some like Dawson or Murphy aren't in, not because of stats, but because they were good, but not the best.
                As has been said many times, it is not the Hall of Mediocrity.
                Stats can help support an argument, but they are not and should not be the determiner and therefore, IMO not used to such an extent.

                As I said, if some of us want to use them, great, go for it.
                But don't just throw them out there as Law!
                Perhaps, (I realize as I am typing this), I am asking for some explanation of such things as oppose to having them thrown out there and expected to know/understand what they mean.

                Is there a Post or a thread that helps understand these things?WHo knows, maybe I will find out that they are neat and informative, once I get it.



                As to Lolich, I have just been supporting a 2d look.
                I am not sure he is a HoFer or not.

                As to Thomas, when I think of great, outstanding, the best 1B men, he is not the first to leap to mind. That is why I am unsure if he is a future HoFer.
                He may very well be, I am just not sure.
                Last edited by Tigerfan1974; 04-05-2006, 05:34 AM.
                1968 and 1984, the greatest ever.

                Comment


                • #9
                  --What measures "being outstanding"? How can you possibly compare players without using numbers? If you don't understand the numbers that are used to do this every day here, check out the stats and sabermetrics forum. There is an introduction to sabermetrics thread that may answer some of your questions.
                  --BTW, Murphy WAS the best in his prime. Or at least was perceived that way as indicated by his 2 MVP awards. Dawson won 1 too (although he didn't deserve it) and was amoung the leading vote getters several other times.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Tigerfan1974
                    Thought and opinion are what really matter.
                    You're obviously not in danger of threatening anyone with the former.

                    Originally posted by Tigerfan1974
                    But when some posts have line after line to make an argument, and that is all the argument is, is lines of numbers, I think it is very confusing.
                    Perhaps you should have paid better attention in algebra class.
                    Last edited by Chadwick; 04-04-2006, 06:54 AM.
                    "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
                    "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
                    "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
                    "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Tigerfan...I think you'll find most if not all of the fans here would love to talk about walkoff home runs, great games, amazing plays, etc. If you want to talk about any kinds of those things, memories of big games, or anything like that, people will read those threads, post in them, and everyone will have a good time.

                      But getting into the Hall of Fame isn't based on a big game, but on a career of being at or near the top of the game. Fisk is in for what he did during 24 years in the majors, not in the WS in 1975...although those things help. If the HOF was based on "events" or single seasons, it'd look a lot different than it does today. Sure, some guys would be the same, but a lot wouldn't be. That's why Eddie Murray is in, but Roger Maris isn't.

                      You don't have to love the numbers to hang out here...plenty here agree with you...they'd rather talk about something else. But no need to attack it as somonehow not being legit, espeically if the reason is because you don't understand it.

                      But if you wanna talk about something else, please start threads about what you want to discuss...whatever it is...the more variety we have around here, the better it is for everyone.
                      Visit my card site at Mike D's Baseball Card Page.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        TF, there is frequently a difference between an opinion and the truth. You have to use evidence to sort these things out. As any prosecuting attorney, defense attornay, and police investigator will tell you, the most unreliable evidence available to them is eyewitness testimony.
                        Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Tigerfan1974
                          It doesn't bother me.
                          But when some posts have line after line to make an argument, and that is all the argument is, is lines of numbers, I think it is very confusing.

                          Baseball is numbers, Yes.
                          755 means something. 56 game streak is something.
                          But getting lost in numbers and trying to make comparisons allowing for parks and dead balls and etc. leaves me in a quandry.

                          I remember a comic stirp where 2 little boys are discussing websites using the numeric and symbol references, somehting like ' did you see abc/123.$%^.xyz site?' Instead they could say, ' I went to the comicstrips.com site and saw this funny thing.'
                          The same could be said for things like sabermetrics and stats in general.
                          'John Doe has a ODP+ of XXX and Winshares of YYY and etc.'
                          Isn't it more about 'remember when Fisk hit that home run in the WS and he is willing it to stay fair?' or 'Remember when Willie made that over the shoulder running catch and then spun and threw it in?'

                          IMO, it is things like that that makes a HoFer!
                          Was he outstanding? Was he the best at the time?
                          It should be on individual achievement, not comparison to other players or other times/circumstances.
                          Stats can be a reference, but maybe some like Dawson or Murphy aren't in, not because of stats, but because they were good, but not the best.
                          As has been said many times, it is not the Hall of Mediocrity.
                          Stats can help support an argument, but they are not and should not be the determiner and therefore, IMO not used to such an extent.

                          As I said, if some of us want to use them, great, go for it.
                          But don't just throw them out there as Law!
                          Perhaps, (I realize as I am typing this), I am asking for some explanation of such things as oppose to having them thrown out there and expected to know/understand what they mean.

                          Is there a Post or a thread that helps understand these things?WHo knows, maybe I will find out that they are neat and informative, once I get it.



                          As to Lolich, I have just been supporting a 2d look.
                          I am not sure he is a HoFer or not.

                          As to Thomas, when I think of great, outstanding, the best 1B men, he is not the first to leap to mind. That is why I am unsure if he is a future HoFer.
                          He may very well be, I am just not sure.
                          Tigerfan,

                          Baseball stats have always played a crucial role in evaluationg and honoring players. This has ALWAYS been true since the days of Henry Chadwick. Baseball stats are unique in that they tell a complex "story" about a player. Without stats one simply cannot now how good a player is. If you watched Albert Pujols and Jim Edmonds for an entire season and you never kept any stats could you tell who was the better hitter? The better defensive player? Bill James wrote about the uniqueness of baseball stats in the Ken Burns book, Baseball:

                          And third, from this unique phenomenon, baseball statistics acquire the powers of language, which is what makes them so uniquely fascinating.

                          Did you ever wonder why it is that people who don’t give a hoot where the Dow Jones average is, who couldn’t tell you within three points what the prime rate is or the crime rate or what the Nielson ratings were can tell you nonetheless that Carlos Baerga has gained eight points in a week and is up to .296?

                          It’s because they don’t receive baseball statistics as numbers, they absorb them as words. A .296 average doesn’t stand for 296 of anything, it doesn’t make one think of 296 apples or 296 oranges. Three hundred means excellence: .296 means just short of the standard of excellence.

                          All baseball statistics are like that. Forty home runs doesn’t refer to forty of anything: it just means power, big power. This is a tremendous advantage. When the average man hears that the Dow Jones average is 3100, this immediately brings up a series of questions. Thirty-one hundred what? Thirty-one hundred dollars? Thirty-one hundred stocks? Is that good or bad? Didn’t it used to be like, 1200 or something? The prime rate is 7.3, what does that mean? Can I borrow money at that rate?
                          Baseball statistics are fascinating because:

                          a) they are personal, and
                          b) they don’t reformulate themselves immediately into these kinds of distracting questions

                          For the existence of a widely recognized standard, transmogrifying “40” into “power” and “.307” into “consistency”, baseball statistics acquire the ability to narrate stories in a manner that is absolutely unique in our culture. We don’t relate to any other numbers in the same way.
                          This descritpion of baseball stats is simply brilliant.
                          Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Captain Cold Nose
                            You can disagree with him all you'd like, Chris, but advising someone to leave when all they asked was a simple question is well over the line. Please refrain from doing that.
                            I wasn't advising him to leave, just saying if he really is annoyed so much by people on this site citing statistics in their arguments, he could leave here and not be annoyed anymore.

                            And when he turns around and says "As to Thomas, when I think of great, outstanding, the best 1B men, he is not the first to leap to mind." that pretty much undermines everything he says here, and shows why statistics really are important in the HOF argument.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by 538280
                              I wasn't advising him to leave, just saying if he really is annoyed so much by people on this site citing statistics in their arguments, he could leave here and not be annoyed anymore.

                              And when he turns around and says "As to Thomas, when I think of great, outstanding, the best 1B men, he is not the first to leap to mind." that pretty much undermines everything he says here, and shows why statistics really are important in the HOF argument.
                              Actually, that is advising him to leave. Not the first time you've done that, either. It's not up to you whether someone should post here or what annoys them. As an open and free site everyone can post here as long as they follow the site rules.
                              In regards to his Thomas opinion, you've had some opinions a lot of posters have regarded as far out, too. But no one is telling you to leave because they disagree with you. Time and time again has proven no one person's ideology is always correct. Everyone has the right to be wrong. They don't need to walk the plank for it.
                              Dave Bill Tom George Mark Bob Ernie Soupy Dick Alex Sparky
                              Joe Gary MCA Emanuel Sonny Dave Earl Stan
                              Jonathan Neil Roger Anthony Ray Thomas Art Don
                              Gates Philip John Warrior Rik Casey Tony Horace
                              Robin Bill Ernie JEDI

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X