Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ranking the HoF Players: 16-20

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

  • dgarza
    replied
    Originally posted by Freakshow View Post
    IMO, this degree of diversity in the voting results should not be occuring this early in the project.
    When dealing with Negro League players, nothing should be expected. Only two players received 5 #1 votes. Both were NgLers, who are notoriously hard to rank. I think much of the diversity come from ranking players that are simply hard to rank and agree upon.

    Leave a comment:


  • DoubleX
    replied
    Originally posted by Freakshow View Post
    Sure, but what is this "everything"? Here, you have the opportunity to define it and get everyone pulling in the same direction.

    For example, in The Seven Circles of Fame project, I gave these concise instructions as to what voters should consider:

    We're still really early in the game, in the top 25 players in the Hall, where there are still discernible differences between players. It's a symptom of inconsistent criteria when you have many voters ranking a player #1, (#16 all-time) while that same player doesn't even make many voters' ballots (+#25 all-time).
    That's the thing though - I don't want to give precise instructions. I want to leave things open to interpretation, because judging a Hall of Famer's worthiness is really wide open to interpretation and that's being reflected in our results.

    I think I've made the instructions here pretty clear and have left it open to the individual voter in how to interpret and apply.

    EDIT: This is what the instructions say: "As this project focuses on players inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame, subjective qualities beyond just statistics should be taken into consideration in determining a player's relative worthiness. In that vein, the voting guidelines that the BBWAA is to follow in actual National Baseball Hall of Fame elections, may be instructive (though not necessarily determinative in this project): "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." "

    I don't think this is much different or any less open-ended then the actual criteria voters use when voting for players. If the people who actually place players into the Hall aren't given more rigid criteria, why should we? The only thing I feel that's worth stressing is that being a Hall of Famer is not necessarily just about statistics, and I think the instructions cover that well, just as the BBWAA instructions do.

    EDIT 2: Also, the fact that in tabulating the voting I award an extra point for each ballot a player is listed on helps guard against outlier voting where a small handful of voters may a player listed inordinately high compared to everyone else. By awarding an extra point, players for which there is some consensus around will receive a boost indicative of the consensus. The fact is though that regardless of how you slice up the rules, people are still going to have differences of opinion over players that are generally very closely grouped together. It seems you're looking for streamlined results here, but I think that's just impractical given the nature of the project, the electorate, and the Hall of Fame itself.
    Last edited by DoubleX; 09-07-2011, 11:27 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Freakshow
    replied
    Originally posted by DoubleX View Post
    The HOF's official criteria is itself rife with ambiguity and open to subjective interpretation. People are going to put a different amount of weight on different things as there is no one right way to balance everything.
    Sure, but what is this "everything"? Here, you have the opportunity to define it and get everyone pulling in the same direction.

    For example, in The Seven Circles of Fame project, I gave these concise instructions as to what voters should consider:

    Since we are only ranking players in this exercise, do not give any extra credit (or discredit) if a guy also was a manager, pioneer, or whatever. Do not give any credit for being famous or colorful. Rank players only on their contributions to their teams’ quest for wins, things that have an effect on the team's fortunes in the win-loss column. This includes considering a guy’s leadership and effect on his teammates (for good or bad). Postseason play should also be given some consideration, though this should be minor, given players’ unequal opportunities for such credit. Give credit for missed playing time due to wars, strikes or short schedules. Minor league play may be considered. Players should not be penalized for PED use; if they were good enough for the HOF, consider them as having passed that test.
    We're still really early in the game, in the top 25 players in the Hall, where there are still discernible differences between players. It's a symptom of inconsistent criteria when you have many voters ranking a player #1, (#16 all-time) while that same player doesn't even make many voters' ballots (+#25 all-time).

    Leave a comment:


  • DoubleX
    replied
    Originally posted by Freakshow View Post
    IMO, this degree of diversity in the voting results should not be occuring this early in the project. The reason for it is the ambiguity of the official rules, which say that we are to primarily use the HOF's official criteria. While some voters are adhering to that, other voters are putting great weight on things like historical significance, his stature beyond his play, and other aspects outside of HOF criteria.

    I addressed this issue back in the second election and never got a definitive answer. Exactly what is allowable and most important to consider in our voting? Apparently voters are free to determine what factors they want to consider. To me, that's a strange way to run a project.
    I don't think so at all. The HOF's official criteria is itself rife with ambiguity and open to subjective interpretation. People are going to put a different amount of weight on different things as there is no one right way to balance everything. I take the diversity in voting results to indicate that there aren't easy choices here and that players are very closely clustered together.

    Leave a comment:


  • Freakshow
    replied
    IMO, this degree of diversity in the voting results should not be occuring this early in the project. The reason for it is the ambiguity of the official rules, which say that we are to primarily use the HOF's official criteria. While some voters are adhering to that, other voters are putting great weight on things like historical significance, his stature beyond his play, and other aspects outside of HOF criteria.

    I addressed this issue back in the second election and never got a definitive answer. Exactly what is allowable and most important to consider in our voting? Apparently voters are free to determine what factors they want to consider. To me, that's a strange way to run a project.
    Last edited by Freakshow; 09-07-2011, 08:44 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DoubleX
    replied
    This election is over and we have a first in this project - the first player to win a round without receiving a single first place vote in that round (while a player who tied for the most first place votes didn't make the top 5). It also seems that we're beginning to see greater parity in the results.

    Here are the full results:

    1) Eddie Collins - 129 (113 points, 16 votes)
    2) Satchel Paige - 126 (109 points, 17 votes; 5 first place votes)
    3) Grover Alexander - 123 (105 points, 18 votes; 2 first place votes)
    4) Frank Robinson - 118 (102 points, 16 votes; 3 first place votes)
    5) Joe DiMaggio - 117 (100 points, 17 votes; 1 first place vote)

    6) Oscar Charleston - 103 (91 points, 12 votes; 5 first place votes)
    7) Mike Schmidt - 94 (80 points, 14 votes)
    8) Lefty Grove - 93 (78 points, 15 votes; 1 first place vote)
    9) Tom Seaver - 85 (70 points, 15 votes; 1 first place vote)
    10) Cap Anson - 85 (72 points, 13 votes; 1 first place vote)
    11) Christy Mathewson - 79 (66 points, 13 votes; 1 first place vote)
    12) Rickey Henderson - 40 (33 points, 7 votes)
    13) Roberto Clemente - 38 (34 points, 4 votes; 1 first place vote)
    14) Joe Morgan - 28 (22 points, 6 votes)
    15) Johnny Bench - 26 (20 points, 6 votes)
    16) Napoleon Lajoie - 23 (17 points, 6 votes)
    17) Jimmie Foxx - 22 (19 points, 3 votes)
    18) Mel Ott - 20 (16 points, 4 votes)
    19) Yogi Berra - 14 (11 points, 3 votes)
    20) Joe Williams - 14 (12 points, 2 votes)
    21) Warren Spahn - 12 (9 points, 3 votes)
    22) Cal Ripken - 10 (8 points, 2 votes)
    t23) King Kelly - 7 (5 points, 2 votes)
    t23) Pop Lloyd - 7 (5 points, 2 votes)
    25) John Ward - 7 (6 points, 1 vote)
    26) Turkey Stearnes - 4 (3 points, 1 vote)
    27) Bob Gibson - 2 (1 point, 1 vote)

    Leave a comment:


  • brett
    replied
    Originally posted by dgarza View Post
    For many years (almost a decade), Henderson was pulling a near "Pete Rose". Dragging it out. Compiling with little value. That'll drag you down some in my rankings.

    From 1994-2003 (age 35-44), he had a WAR of 16.5 (averging 1.65/season). That's not really good.
    He averaged 2.46 WAR per 162 games from '94-'03. Pete Rose average 0.78 per 162 in his last 10 seasons.

    Leave a comment:


  • PVNICK
    replied
    I know he continued to play, but IIRC the runs record was mentioned as a motivator for him FWIW.

    Leave a comment:


  • dgarza
    replied
    Originally posted by Windy City Fan View Post
    Like others have said, Rickey just loved to play. How many other HOFers in their mid 40's go out and play minor league ball? I give him credit for that. He's made numerous statements over the years saying that he just loves the play. I bet Rickey would put a uniform on right now if some team gave him a chance.
    OK.... But what does that have to do with evaluating a player? Pete Rose liked to play too (among other things). I like to play. Lots of people like to play.

    Leave a comment:


  • Windy City Fan
    replied
    Originally posted by dgarza View Post
    For many years (almost a decade), Henderson was pulling a near "Pete Rose". Dragging it out. Compiling with little value. That'll drag you down some in my rankings.

    From 1994-2003 (age 35-44), he had a WAR of 16.5 (averging 1.65/season). That's not really good. And yes, that factors in.
    Sure he was old after 40, but at 35-37 he should still have been doing better than he did or hung it up. I know he could still run, but defense suffered and offense was nothing to write home about.

    Henderson was kind of underrated during the 80s & 90s. But now I think alot of people overrate him based on compiled numbers of newer metrics.
    From 1994 to 1999, Henderson was still a solid every day starter. A 111 OPS+ with a .403 OBP, and 239 steals. Very acceptable numbers for a lead off man. His power had declined, but he still got on base at a very good rate and could still run, the two main jobs a lead off man has. The last four years weren't pretty, but even then he was a useful part time guy who could still get on base at an above average clip and still had some life left in those legs.

    Like others have said, Rickey just loved to play. How many other HOFers in their mid 40's go out and play minor league ball? I give him credit for that. He's made numerous statements over the years saying that he just loves the play. I bet Rickey would put a uniform on right now if some team gave him a chance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Cold Nose
    replied
    Originally posted by dgarza View Post
    But how useful? Bench players are signed because they can be useful. If Henderson was signed because he was "percieved" to be useful, then the percepction was off/wrong or they just wanted him to steal bases, which is useful, but so was Vince Coleman's speed, but it was a limited, near 1-dimensional usefulness.
    He was always ready to play cards.

    Leave a comment:


  • dgarza
    replied
    Originally posted by leecemark View Post
    --Pete Rose was penciling himself into the lineup when he was a terrible player in pursuit of the hits record.
    Only partially true. Rose was only player/manager for 2.25 seasons. What about when he was equally bad with the Expos and Phillies for multiple years? To use the logic of why Henderson was still playing, Bill Verdon, Pat Corrales, and Paul Owens also must have seen value in Rose, even though we can see how poor of a player he was even then. They were penciling him in the line up too.

    Henderson was signed by a bunch of different teams, not to help him compile stats, but because they thought he could help them win.
    Or because he could be a draw.

    He wasn't a superstar anymore or even a star, but he was a usefull player.
    But how useful? Bench players are signed because they can be useful. If Henderson was signed because he was "percieved" to be useful, then the percepction was off/wrong or they just wanted him to steal bases, which is useful, but so was Vince Coleman's speed, but it was a limited, near 1-dimensional usefulness.
    Last edited by dgarza; 09-02-2011, 11:56 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DoubleX
    replied
    Originally posted by leecemark View Post
    --Pete Rose was penciling himself into the lineup when he was a terrible player in pursuit of the hits record. Henderson was signed by a bunch of different teams, not to help him compile stats, but because they thought he could help them win. He wasn't a superstar anymore or even a star, but he was a usefull player. I think he stuck around simply because he loved playing baseball, which makes him more likeable to me.
    I agree - Henderson's career persisted because there were teams willing to sign him. People may hold that against Henderson, but like you, I believe Henderson simply loved playing baseball, and he didn't care where it was or how much he was being paid, he just wanted to be out there. I think that's why he hung around and played three seasons of Independent League ball until he was 46 - he just wanted to play, and I admire that about him. First ballot Hall of Famers don't just go play in Newark in their mid 40s.

    Leave a comment:


  • leecemark
    replied
    --Pete Rose was penciling himself into the lineup when he was a terrible player in pursuit of the hits record. Henderson was signed by a bunch of different teams, not to help him compile stats, but because they thought he could help them win. He wasn't a superstar anymore or even a star, but he was a usefull player. I think he stuck around simply because he loved playing baseball, which makes him more likeable to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • dgarza
    replied
    Originally posted by SavoyBG View Post
    No way there's 59 players better than Rickey. The numbers say he should be top 25. In career WAR he ranks #17 of all time including ptchers. He's #14 among position players.
    For many years (almost a decade), Henderson was pulling a near "Pete Rose". Dragging it out. Compiling with little value. That'll drag you down some in my rankings.

    From 1994-2003 (age 35-44), he had a WAR of 16.5 (averging 1.65/season). That's not really good. And yes, that factors in.
    Sure he was old after 40, but at 35-37 he should still have been doing better than he did or hung it up. I know he could still run, but defense suffered and offense was nothing to write home about.

    Henderson was kind of underrated during the 80s & 90s. But now I think alot of people overrate him based on compiled numbers of newer metrics.
    Last edited by dgarza; 09-02-2011, 09:31 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X