Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Single Ballot BBF Hall of Fame

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
    I don't understand why Vic Willis is even struggling to make it. His advanced metrics and even (mostly) traditional stats aren't much behind McGinnity, Vance, and Waddell at all. Saber Guys should love him: he 67 pWAR and 35 WAA in only 13 seasons. Four 8-win seasons. Traditionalists should love him - won 20 games 8 times.
    He gives back 3-4 wins for his poor offensive game during that time era, dropping him to 63-64 WAR and 28-29 WAA, still worthy.

    The question becomes: how much credit should Vic yield to his defenders?
    Willis sports a 44 FIP WAR, with quality defenders Fred Tenney, Bobby Lowe, Jimmy Collins, and Herman Long behind him with Boston, and Honus Wagner, Tommy Leach, and Fred Clarke in Pittsburgh.

    Too bad statcast data isn't available to indicate a propensity for inducing weak contact!

    The McGinnity comp is interesting, although I find Joe's peak/prime to be a bit stronger, and what do we make of his 3600 + minor league innings?!
    This should be worth a little something??

    For deadball candidates, I slightly prefer Eddie Cicotte or Babe Adams.
    Jacquelyn Eva Marchand (1983-2017)
    http://www.tezakfuneralhome.com/noti...uelyn-Marchand

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Jar of Flies View Post
      He gives back 3-4 wins for his poor offensive game during that time era, dropping him to 63-64 WAR and 28-29 WAA, still worthy.

      The question becomes: how much credit should Vic yield to his defenders?
      Willis sports a 44 FIP WAR, with quality defenders Fred Tenney, Bobby Lowe, Jimmy Collins, and Herman Long behind him with Boston, and Honus Wagner, Tommy Leach, and Fred Clarke in Pittsburgh.

      Too bad statcast data isn't available to indicate a propensity for inducing weak contact!

      The McGinnity comp is interesting, although I find Joe's peak/prime to be a bit stronger, and what do we make of his 3600 + minor league innings?!
      This should be worth a little something??

      For deadball candidates, I slightly prefer Eddie Cicotte or Babe Adams.
      Using BBref...he goes to 63.5 and 31.3. With four 8+ seasons.

      Guys from his era massively out-produced their peripherals all the time. Using FIP for a long career guy during that era is silly, IMO.

      As far as his defense - BBRef already docked him about 30 runs. Even if it were really 50- he'd still be in the 60's and upper 20's for a very short career.

      I don't think he was quite as good as Wadell or McGinnity either...but close enough that those two are in easily but Willis isn't in at all.
      Last edited by Bothrops Atrox; 02-10-2017, 07:22 PM.
      1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

      1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

      1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


      The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
      The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
        Using BBref...he goes to 63.5 and 31.3. With four 8+ seasons.

        Guys from his era massively out-produced their peripherals all the time. Using FIP for a long career guy during that era is silly, IMO.

        As far as his defense - BBRef already docked him about 30 runs. Even if it were really 50- he'd still be in the 60's and upper 20's for a very short career.

        I don't think he was quite as good as Wadell or McGinnity either...but close enough that those two are in easily but Willis isn't in at all.
        I see 27.5 WAA for B-R at seamheads.

        I agree that FIP isn't something to rely heavily on, but should it be dismissed outright?
        If you used a 25% weight for FIP and 75% for B-R/B-G, Willis drops to 58.5 WAR.
        I have Vic around 66 in B-R, 71 in B-G, and 155! in F-G, using the same % split, Willis falls to ~90 all-time and below the line.

        He's a guy I exercise caution with but I understand why others find him worthy.
        Jacquelyn Eva Marchand (1983-2017)
        http://www.tezakfuneralhome.com/noti...uelyn-Marchand

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jar of Flies View Post
          I see 27.5 WAA for B-R at seamheads.

          I agree that FIP isn't something to rely heavily on, but should it be dismissed outright?
          If you used a 25% weight for FIP and 75% for B-R/B-G, Willis drops to 58.5 WAR.
          I have Vic around 66 in B-R, 71 in B-G, and 155! in F-G, using the same % split, Willis falls to ~90 all-time and below the line.

          He's a guy I exercise caution with but I understand why others find him worthy.
          He is hardly a slam dunk. I can see why he is struggling and honestly, I think many people here are way too generous when it comes to pre-integration. There are a lot of worthy candidates from his era and he does not stand out as a clear yes from his era.

          On a side note, I've noticed that some people have almost 50% of the pitchers from pre-1892 in their pHOFs alone. Those same people are extra stingy with 3B and 2B from the same era. Maybe it's time to abandon raw WAR and WAA and look at best at position/era. Pitchers are overvalued using every SABR stat out there from the age of throwing out one's arm in 2-3 seasons and were not valued the way they are today. This is one of many reasons why stat heads need to actually study usage patterns and anecdotal history from time to time. Just my caveat and I'll get off my soapbox now.
          Last edited by jjpm74; 02-10-2017, 09:18 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jar of Flies View Post
            I see 27.5 WAA for B-R at seamheads.

            I agree that FIP isn't something to rely heavily on, but should it be dismissed outright?
            If you used a 25% weight for FIP and 75% for B-R/B-G, Willis drops to 58.5 WAR.
            I have Vic around 66 in B-R, 71 in B-G, and 155! in F-G, using the same % split, Willis falls to ~90 all-time and below the line.

            He's a guy I exercise caution with but I understand why others find him worthy.
            If remembering Tom Tango's regression formula, I think for 4,000 innings, you are at around 80/20 for FIP issues...and that is in a three true outcome league. Back when most events were balls in play, I doubt I would regress more than 5%for FIP at 4,000 IP. FIP really isn't a big deal at all at that sample in that era.
            Last edited by Bothrops Atrox; 02-10-2017, 09:39 PM.
            1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

            1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

            1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


            The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
            The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

            Comment


            • Originally posted by jjpm74 View Post
              He is hardly a slam dunk. I can see why he is struggling and honestly, I think many people here are way too generous when it comes to pre-integration. There are a lot of worthy candidates from his era and he does not stand out as a clear yes from his era.

              On a side note, I've noticed that some people have almost 50% of the pitchers from pre-1892 in their pHOFs alone. Those same people are extra stingy with 3B and 2B from the same era. Maybe it's time to abandon raw WAR and WAA and look at best at position/era. Pitchers are overvalued using every SABR stat out there from the age of throwing out one's arm in 2-3 seasons and were not valued the way they are today. This is one of many reasons why stat heads need to actually study usage patterns and anecdotal history from time to time. Just my caveat and I'll get off my soapbox now.
              I think most staheads do...or guys like Guy Helker, Silver King, and Bobby Mathews would be in their HOF. I don't even have Mickey Welch or Tony Mullane in my HOF. I have McCormck, Bond, and Galvin in by the absolute skin of their teeth. Most stat heads do study usage patterns and anectodotal history. I for one have just recently been talking tons about usage patterns just noe over in the Wynn/Perry and Sockeye's top 1000 theads. You have been around here long enough and heard us talk enough to give us more credit than that.

              I agree with most of what you are saying...WAA is much better for those eras and the 60's-70's than WAR. The 19th century is definitely overepresented by so e, esp. considering how,underrepresented the 80's are and the 2000's-2010's will be on the pitching side.

              In terms of Willis...his relative to era WAR and WAA best seasons are definitely HOF worthy. I have him in my lower 25% of HOFers even after my defense of him, FWIW.
              Last edited by Bothrops Atrox; 02-10-2017, 09:46 PM.
              1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

              1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

              1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


              The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
              The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
                If remembering Tom Tango's regression formula, I think for 4,000 innings, you are at around 80/20 for FIP issues...and that is in a three true outcome league. Back when most events were balls in play, I doubt I would regress more than 5%for FIP at 4,000 IP. FIP really isn't a big deal at all at that sample in that era.
                It would be great if you could find the study from Tango.
                I've went back and forth on Willis, so this would help push the chips back in his favor.

                To your next comment, I have the same set of 1800s guys less Jim McCormick, who's killer in B-R but dreadful in B-G and F-G.
                Using a 5% FIP rule for that time era, Charlie Buffinton would move into a high-borderline spot.

                How does Galvin slide so far down your list?
                Seems comparable or a bit worse than the top group of Clarkson, Radbourn, and Keefe.
                He gets bonus points from me for some excellent work in the International Association for the Buffalo Bisons that eventually joined the American Association.
                Jacquelyn Eva Marchand (1983-2017)
                http://www.tezakfuneralhome.com/noti...uelyn-Marchand

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jar of Flies View Post
                  It would be great if you could find the study from Tango.
                  I've went back and forth on Willis, so this would help push the chips back in his favor.

                  To your next comment, I have the same set of 1800s guys less Jim McCormick, who's killer in B-R but dreadful in B-G and F-G.
                  Using a 5% FIP rule for that time era, Charlie Buffinton would move into a high-borderline spot.

                  How does Galvin slide so far down your list?
                  Seems comparable or a bit worse than the top group of Clarkson, Radbourn, and Keefe.
                  He gets bonus points from me for some excellent work in the International Association for the Buffalo Bisons that eventually joined the American Association.
                  For one, his combined WAR + WAA is 101 compared to 116 for Radbourn, and over 130 for both Keefe and Clarkson.
                  1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

                  1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

                  1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


                  The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
                  The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
                    For one, his combined WAR + WAA is 101 compared to 116 for Radbourn, and over 130 for both Keefe and Clarkson.
                    Taking a 47.5% allocation for B-R and B-G, and 5% for FIP, Keefe and Clarkson remain dominant, while Galvin and Radbourn match each other.
                    Keefe 144, Clarkson 139, Radbourn 114, Galvin 113.
                    To close the gap a bit, Radbourn and Galvin are sublime in 1884, a bit stronger than Clarkson's finest in 1879 and Keefes AA 1883 campaign.

                    For Pud, he's dominant in his first NL season at age 22, his SABR bio and known stats suggest he was for a year or two prior to this for the Buffalo Bisons of the International Association. Any extra credit for his IA value could give him a healthy boost.
                    Jacquelyn Eva Marchand (1983-2017)
                    http://www.tezakfuneralhome.com/noti...uelyn-Marchand

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jar of Flies View Post
                      Taking a 47.5% allocation for B-R and B-G, and 5% for FIP, Keefe and Clarkson remain dominant, while Galvin and Radbourn match each other.
                      Keefe 144, Clarkson 139, Radbourn 114, Galvin 113.
                      To close the gap a bit, Radbourn and Galvin are sublime in 1884, a bit stronger than Clarkson's finest in 1879 and Keefes AA 1883 campaign.

                      For Pud, he's dominant in his first NL season at age 22, his SABR bio and known stats suggest he was for a year or two prior to this for the Buffalo Bisons of the International Association. Any extra credit for his IA value could give him a healthy boost.
                      Are you including offense? Galvin was a horrific hitter. Almost -100 runs compared to +25 for Old Hoss. But I do not have Radbourn and Galvin that far apart, do I? I mean, there isn't much difference between mid 50's and low 70s.

                      One more thing that I didn't like about Galvin is that something like 39% of his career value came in two seasons. He just really wasn't anything all-that unique or special outside of 1883-1884. I looked at Radbourn and saw that he had pretty much the same situation. The moral for me is that I need to drop Old Hoss some more - not that yet another 19th century guy needs to move up in my top 60.
                      1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

                      1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

                      1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


                      The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
                      The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
                        Are you including offense? Galvin was a horrific hitter. Almost -100 runs compared to +25 for Old Hoss. But I do not have Radbourn and Galvin that far apart, do I? I mean, there isn't much difference between mid 50's and low 70s.

                        One more thing that I didn't like about Galvin is that something like 39% of his career value came in two seasons. He just really wasn't anything all-that unique or special outside of 1883-1884. I looked at Radbourn and saw that he had pretty much the same situation. The moral for me is that I need to drop Old Hoss some more - not that yet another 19th century guy needs to move up in my top 60.
                        I included hitting value, agreed that it's tough when a pitcher from this era is super elite for a couple of years, we naturally don't want to overrate them due to this.
                        Jacquelyn Eva Marchand (1983-2017)
                        http://www.tezakfuneralhome.com/noti...uelyn-Marchand

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jar of Flies View Post
                          I included hitting value, agreed that it's tough when a pitcher from this era is super elite for a couple of years, we naturally don't want to overrate them due to this.
                          For the record - a run created on offense also need to count as a WAA and WAR. So Galvin should be at 101 combined WAR+ WAA [128-(9.8x2)]. Radbourn would be at 116 [11 x (2.5x2)]. Pitcher offense has an average baseline.
                          Last edited by Bothrops Atrox; 02-12-2017, 02:37 PM.
                          1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

                          1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

                          1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


                          The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
                          The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

                          Comment


                          • Bothrops would you mind clearing out some old messages? as I was going to send you a PM and got an error message about your quota being exceeded.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by layson27 View Post
                              Bothrops would you mind clearing out some old messages? as I was going to send you a PM and got an error message about your quota being exceeded.
                              Sure. Will do.
                              1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

                              1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

                              1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


                              The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
                              The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
                                Sure. Will do.
                                Thanks.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X