Election 71-75

[DoubleX]

On paper, Bert Blyleven is a top 100 player. In a project like this, Blyleven was a nothing who ignored the media and no one outside of Minnesota cared about. There's no way in a project that is supposed to emphasize fame, Blyleven should be popping up here. There are a good 20-30 players who are a better fit here.

Blyleven, despite being relatively close in my strict pitcher rankings, is not really on my radar here yet because many in this closely pact area move past Blyleven on subjective factors.

That being said, I think there is a growing subjective factor in Blylevens favor in that his candidacy embodied a very major and still growing shift in player evaluation, statistical analysis, and the power of the internet. Only in these times could Blyleven, a player who consistently never got his due on account of an over reliance on wins and losses, be elected, and I believe tracking his progression with the BBWAA is reflective of the growing embrace of better analysis. So in some ways I think Blylevens election is something of a watershed moment and should give new life to worthy players who were unfairly overlooked by traditional stats.

[jalbright]

Too many of the voters are not taking anything into account other than the player's value on the field.

True. 'tis a shame, though. I never understood the whole idea of participating in different projects if the participants are just going to repost the same list they have over and over again.

Well, guys, you are most certainly entitled to your opinion. The thing is, I am also entitled to mine, which has been stated previously, namely that "fame" generally plays a very small part in my lists. It's a big deal for the Ichiros and the Jackie Robinsons, and will be important for Tommy McCarthy to distinguish him from the bottom of the barrel. Also, as Double X points out above, Blyleven's long exclusion made him a poster boy for arguments based at least in part on more modern methods of analysis. That's certainly a kind of fame as well. The bottom line is that the way we decide these issues is by the results of the voting. If the voters as a whole agree with you, the results will reflect that. If the voters as a whole agree more with my approach, the results will reflect that.

[Domenic]

The 'fame' debate is certainly worthwhile. I feel sort of silly for simply agreeing with this:

Well, guys, you are most certainly entitled to your opinion. The thing is, I am also entitled to mine, which has been stated previously, namely that "fame" generally plays a very small part in my lists. It's a big deal for the Ichiros and the Jackie Robinsons, and will be important for Tommy McCarthy to distinguish him from the bottom of the barrel. Also, as Double X points out above, Blyleven's long exclusion made him a poster boy for arguments based at least in part on more modern methods of analysis. That's certainly a kind of fame as well. The bottom line is that the way we decide these issues is by the results of the voting. If the voters as a whole agree with you, the results will reflect that. If the voters as a whole agree more with my approach, the results will reflect that.

But I couldn't have really said it better myself.

Is there really anything more subjective than fame? Or, perhaps even more so, weighing said fame in conjunction with a player's accomplishments?

[jjpm74]

Is there really anything more subjective than fame? Or, perhaps even more so, weighing said fame in conjunction with a player's accomplishments?

Sure, fame is very subjective. Subjectivity was the intended purpose of this project, I believe unless I'm misinterpreting the original thread.

What I was aluding to is that there are a few people here who participate in almost every ranking project, whether it is i the HOF forum or in the history forum and when they do, they just use their same old rigid, unbending lists that they compiled over and over without taking into regard the intent of the project. If that brings enjoyment to them, more power to them I guess.

[jalbright]

Only once have I ignored the stated goal of a project, in the Progressive project. I stated quite openly that I was not about to try and ignore what I know, and offered to withdraw if that was not acceptable. I was told to continue in a manner I was comfortable with.

In the current project, I am not ignoring the concept of worthiness of a spot in the HOF. However, I generally feel the notoriety issue is both nebulous and of limited importance. That being the case, my results in this project will largely trace my player rankings. There are cases, like Jackie Robinson now and Tommy McCarthy toward the end of the project where I will definitely depart from those rankings.

Beyond that, it definitely seems to me that many (if not most) people have a short cut way of dealing with these projects, be it a seat of the pants evaluation method or a prepared list. Many of us enjoy these discussions and like to participate in them, but do not have the time to painstakingly adapt to the specifics of the project. For example, in this case, I wouldn’t have the time to assess how the mythical average fan regards each and every player. I wonder if anyone does that for every player. If someone does, I envy the fact that person has far more time to devote to this project than I do.

[jjpm74]

For example, in this case, I wouldn’t have the time to assess how the mythical average fan regards each and every player. I wonder if anyone does that for every player. If someone does, I envy the fact that person has far more time to devote to this project than I do.

You don't have to. BBref has already gone to that trouble:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/ratings.cgi

[jalbright]

That resource is a help. But it begs the question, does the vox populi represented by EloRater give a better answer, even given the confines of this project? I'm not convinced of that.

[Los Bravos]

For the record, I'm not really taking fame, as such, into account (at least not much.) I'm going with (in rough order) on field greatness, lasting impact on the game and personal quality. If held to a strict ranking of best players in order, I would probably be making a different list.

Taking all of these other factors into account really appeals to me and it's the main reason I've stuck with this porject so far.

[jjpm74]

That resource is a help. But it begs the question, does the vox populi represented by EloRater give a better answer, even given the confines of this project? I'm not convinced of that.

I think in this specific project, it serves as a source that can be used in conjunction with WAR and win shares which only show how a player did statistically. The idea of someone like Arky Vaughan outranking someone like Ernie Banks in this type of project shows the inability of some to get out of their comfort zone and look beyond the numbers for a change.

[jalbright]

Why does Banks' greater fame make him more worthy of the HOF than Vaughan, despite Arky's definitely superior play? Certainly, the quality of play deserves to be a sizeable portion of worthiness for the HOF. The stated direction is worthiness, after all (see first post).

[BigRon]

I think in this specific project, it serves as a source that can be used in conjunction with WAR and win shares which only show how a player did statistically. The idea of someone like Arky Vaughan outranking someone like Ernie Banks in this type of project shows the inability of some to get out of their comfort zone and look beyond the numbers for a change.

Vaughan is an excellent example of the problem. Analytically, Vaughan has been proven to be a great player, probably one of the 3 or 4 top shortstops alltime. When he played he certainly was regarded as a terrific player but I doubt that he was considered to be iconic. He was really good, and treated as such- that was it- but not considered to be one of the alltime greats. He was well known, but not famous in the way contemporaries such as Gehrig, Greenberg, Hubbell, Ott, teammate Waner were. But, in this exercise he's ranked really near where he "belongs", according to more modern performance metrics. I would argue that his relative "anonymity" (obviously he wasn't, but hopefully you get the idea) should have pushed him down quite a way from where he has been placed. Snider, who I have been championing, is in some ways a counterpoint to Vaughan. His overall career probably places him somewhere near where he was ranked (67), but I believe his fame- and he was really famous- and his place on an iconic team and at a "magical" time- should have elevated him well above where he finished. In fact, Vaughan and Snider swapping places would make sense to me.

[jjpm74]

Why does Banks' greater fame make him more worthy of the HOF than Vaughan, despite Arky's definitely superior play? Certainly, the quality of play deserves to be a sizeable portion of worthiness for the HOF. The stated direction is worthiness, after all (see first post).

Banks has 2 MVP awards. Vaughan has zero. Both of those years, Banks had a higher WAR than Vaughan's best years and he did so in an integrated league. Banks had 700 more RBIs and 400 more home runs than Vaughan. Banks was better defensively than Vaughan at the same position. What makes Vaughan more worthy than Banks even if you don't factor in his influence in the game and the fact that he was one of the most popular players of his generation?

[jalbright]

Banks' years as a shortstop were spectacular. However, that was only half his career. The other half, he was a first baseman, and he wasn't a particularly good one given that he was playing in the daytime at Wrigley so much.

[DoubleX]

As the person who started this project, I'll say that there isn't a set way of how players should be evaluated here. This project was meant to include subjectivity, and that includes subjectivity in the method. I wanted to do this for two reasons: 1) To make this project a little different than the many player ranking projects we've done; and 2) Because I believe strongly that being a Hall of Famer isn't just about statistics - though obviously statistics are a big factor. Ultimately, as Jim mentioned earlier, the results will balance out between groups that place more emphasis on statistics and groups that are giving more credit for other elements.

I actually think Arky Vaughan is a good example - in a strict player ranking, Vaughan may well have come in as a top 40 player. Here he's 57th, so we're talking about a drop of perhaps 20 places, and that's notable and reflective of the balance of the consensus - there was a group that felt he should have been higher based on his statistical performance, and a group that felt he should have been lower based on a lack of notoriety compared to other players, and ultimately it balanced out to have him probably someplace in the middle of where each group deemed he should be.

I'd also say that it's warranted to place a lot of emphasis on statistical analysis because generally speaking, performance, and quantifiable performance, is the first element that got most Hall of Fame players into the Hall. While Vaughan may have been underrated in his day, we can see now that he was actually a pretty special player, one of the all time greatest at his position, and that's probably worthy of a fairly high ranking here. That being said, when comparing Vaughan to players with similar performance (or even slightly lesser than Vaughan), Vaughan may understandably fall behind due subjective factors. I believe I had Banks slightly ahead of Vaughan here and that's because that while I believe Vaughan was the better player I think Banks' combination of achievement and stardom, makes him a more notable Hall of Famer; that being said, I wasn't going to punish Vaughan's great play too much based on the fact he was underappreciated - he deserves recognition for being the great player he was.

I hope this all make sense...

[BigRon]

As the person who started this project, I'll say that there isn't a set way of how players should be evaluated here. This project was meant to include subjectivity, and that includes subjectivity in the method. I wanted to do this for two reasons: 1) To make this project a little different than the many player ranking projects we've done; and 2) Because I believe strongly that being a Hall of Famer isn't just about statistics - though obviously statistics are a big factor. Ultimately, as Jim mentioned earlier, the results will balance out between groups that place more emphasis on statistics and groups that are giving more credit for other elements.

I actually think Arky Vaughan is a good example - in a strict player ranking, Vaughan may well have come in as a top 40 player. Here he's 57th, so we're talking about a drop of perhaps 20 places, and that's notable and reflective of the balance of the consensus - there was a group that felt he should have been higher based on his statistical performance, and a group that felt he should have been lower based on a lack of notoriety compared to other players, and ultimately it balanced out to have him probably someplace in the middle of where each group deemed he should be.

I'd also say that it's warranted to place a lot of emphasis on statistical analysis because generally speaking, performance, and quantifiable performance, is the first element that got most Hall of Fame players into the Hall. While Vaughan may have been underrated in his day, we can see now that he was actually a pretty special player, one of the all time greatest at his position, and that's probably worthy of a fairly high ranking here. That being said, when comparing Vaughan to players with similar performance (or even slightly lesser than Vaughan), Vaughan may understandably fall behind due subjective factors. I believe I had Banks slightly ahead of Vaughan here and that's because that while I believe Vaughan was the better player I think Banks' combination of achievement and stardom, makes him a more notable Hall of Famer; that being said, I wasn't going to punish Vaughan's great play too much based on the fact he was underappreciated - he deserves recognition for being the great player he was.

I hope this all make sense...

Good post, DoubleX- similar to comments I made in post 26. One caveat- Vaughan may have been around a top 40 position player, based on more modern thinking, but when you mix in the top pitchers he certainly is lower- probably no higher than the mid- 50s- almost exactly where he was spotted.