Announcement

Collapse

Updated Baseball Fever Policy

Baseball Fever Policy

I. Purpose of this announcement:

This announcement describes the policies pertaining to the operation of Baseball Fever.

Baseball Fever is a moderated baseball message board which encourages and facilitates research and information exchange among fans of our national pastime. The intent of the Baseball Fever Policy is to ensure that Baseball Fever remains an extremely high quality, extremely low "noise" environment.

Baseball Fever is administrated by three principal administrators:
webmaster - Baseball Fever Owner
The Commissioner - Baseball Fever Administrator
Macker - Baseball Fever Administrator

And a group of forum specific super moderators. The role of the moderator is to keep Baseball Fever smoothly and to screen posts for compliance with our policy. The moderators are ALL volunteer positions, so please be patient and understanding of any delays you might experience in correspondence.

II. Comments about our policy:

Any suggestions on this policy may be made directly to the webmaster.

III. Acknowledgments:

This document was based on a similar policy used by SABR.

IV. Requirements for participation on Baseball Fever:

Participation on Baseball Fever is available to all baseball fans with a valid email address, as verified by the forum's automated system, which then in turn creates a single validated account. Multiple accounts by a single user are prohibited.

By registering, you agree to adhere to the policies outlined in this document and to conduct yourself accordingly. Abuse of the forum, by repeated failure to abide by these policies, will result in your access being blocked to the forum entirely.

V. Baseball Fever Netiquette:

Participants at Baseball Fever are required to adhere to these principles, which are outlined in this section.
a. All posts to Baseball Fever should be written in clear, concise English, with proper grammar and accurate spelling. The use of abbreviations should be kept to a minimum; when abbreviation is necessary, they should be either well-known (such as etc.), or explained on their first use in your post.

b. Conciseness is a key attribute of a good post.

c. Quote only the portion of a post to which you are responding.

d. Standard capitalization and punctuation make a large difference in the readability of a post. TYPING IN ALL CAPITALS is considered to be "shouting"; it is a good practice to limit use of all capitals to words which you wish to emphasize.

e. It is our policy NOT to transmit any defamatory or illegal materials.

f. Personal attacks of any type against Baseball Fever readers will not be tolerated. In these instances the post will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the personal attack via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue personal attacks will be banned from the site.

g. It is important to remember that many contextual clues available in face-to-face discussion, such as tone of voice and facial expression, are lost in the electronic forum. As a poster, try to be alert for phrasing that might be misinterpreted by your audience to be offensive; as a reader, remember to give the benefit of the doubt and not to take umbrage too easily. There are many instances in which a particular choice of words or phrasing can come across as being a personal attack where none was intended.

h. The netiquette described above (a-g) often uses the term "posts", but applies equally to Private Messages.

VI. Baseball Fever User Signature Policy

A signature is a piece of text that some members may care to have inserted at the end of ALL of their posts, a little like the closing of a letter. You can set and / or change your signature by editing your profile in the UserCP. Since it is visible on ALL your posts, the following policy must be adhered to:

Signature Composition
Font size limit: No larger than size 2 (This policy is a size 2)
Style: Bold and italics are permissible
Character limit: No more than 500 total characters
Lines: No more than 4 lines
Colors: Most colors are permissible, but those which are hard to discern against the gray background (yellow, white, pale gray) should be avoided
Images/Graphics: Allowed, but nothing larger than 20k and Content rules must be followed

Signature Content
No advertising is permitted
Nothing political or religious
Nothing obscene, vulgar, defamatory or derogatory
Links to personal blogs/websites are permissible - with the webmaster's written consent
A Link to your Baseball Fever Blog does not require written consent and is recommended
Quotes must be attributed. Non-baseball quotes are permissible as long as they are not religious or political

Please adhere to these rules when you create your signature. Failure to do so will result in a request to comply by a moderator. If you do not comply within a reasonable amount of time, the signature will be removed and / or edited by an Administrator. Baseball Fever reserves the right to edit and / or remove any or all of your signature line at any time without contacting the account holder.

VII. Appropriate and inappropriate topics for Baseball Fever:

Most concisely, the test for whether a post is appropriate for Baseball Fever is: "Does this message discuss our national pastime in an interesting manner?" This post can be direct or indirect: posing a question, asking for assistance, providing raw data or citations, or discussing and constructively critiquing existing posts. In general, a broad interpretation of "baseball related" is used.

Baseball Fever is not a promotional environment. Advertising of products, web sites, etc., whether for profit or not-for-profit, is not permitted. At the webmaster's discretion, brief one-time announcements for products or services of legitimate baseball interest and usefulness may be allowed. If advertising is posted to the site it will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the post via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue advertising will be banned from the site. If the advertising is spam-related, pornography-based, or a "visit-my-site" type post / private message, no warning at all will be provided, and the member will be banned immediately without a warning.

It is considered appropriate to post a URL to a page which specifically and directly answers a question posted on the list (for example, it would be permissible to post a link to a page containing home-road splits, even on a site which has advertising or other commercial content; however, it would not be appropriate to post the URL of the main page of the site). The site reserves the right to limit the frequency of such announcements by any individual or group.

In keeping with our test for a proper topic, posting to Baseball Fever should be treated as if you truly do care. This includes posting information that is, to the best of your knowledge, complete and accurate at the time you post. Any errors or ambiguities you catch later should be acknowledged and corrected in the thread, since Baseball Fever is sometimes considered to be a valuable reference for research information.

VIII. Role of the moderator:

When a post is submitted to Baseball Fever, it is forwarded by the server automatically and seen immediately. The moderator may:
a. Leave the thread exactly like it was submitted. This is the case 95% of the time.

b. Immediately delete the thread as inappropriate for Baseball Fever. Examples include advertising, personal attacks, or spam. This is the case 1% of the time.

c. Move the thread. If a member makes a post about the Marlins in the Yankees forum it will be moved to the appropriate forum. This is the case 3% of the time.

d. Edit the message due to an inappropriate item. This is the case 1% of the time. There have been new users who will make a wonderful post, then add to their signature line (where your name / handle appears) a tagline that is a pure advertisement. This tagline will be removed, a note will be left in the message so he/she is aware of the edit, and personal contact will be made to the poster telling them what has been edited and what actions need to be taken to prevent further edits.

The moderators perform no checks on posts to verify factual or logical accuracy. While he/she may point out gross errors in factual data in replies to the thread, the moderator does not act as an "accuracy" editor. Also moderation is not a vehicle for censorship of individuals and/or opinions, and the moderator's decisions should not be taken personally.

IX. Legal aspects of participation in Baseball Fever:

By submitting a post to Baseball Fever, you grant Baseball Fever permission to distribute your message to the forum. Other rights pertaining to the post remain with the ORIGINAL author, and you may not redistribute or retransmit any posts by any others, in whole or in part, without the express consent of the original author.

The messages appearing on Baseball Fever contain the opinions and views of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of Baseball Fever, or of the Baseball Almanac family of sites.

Sincerely,

Sean Holtz, Webmaster of Baseball Almanac & Baseball Fever
www.baseball-almanac.com | www.baseball-fever.com
"Baseball Almanac: Sharing Baseball. Sharing History."
See more
See less

BBF Mets franchise HOF round four

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

  • #16
    I know what standards I'm looking for, but I don't think it's outlandish for voters to expect several all-star type years or a MVP/Cy Young type year (especially the Cleon Jones model--in a surprise World Series year). Carter was a four time all-star with the Mets. Now, that arguably has something to do with 1) his reputation, and 2) his competition in the NL for a catching slot. Even so, he was a 4 time all-star. Franco was a one time all-star for the franchise, but closers are a bit limited, so perhaps that can be forgiven. Kranepool, though was only a one time all-star in 1965--probably the Met representative in a day when every team had at least one all-star. If you look at Kranepool's WAR, he never had a season as good as 2 WAR--and five is all-star level. In fact, his career WAR is 4.4. At that level of play, I don't care how long Kranepool was a Met. I'm not a Met fan, and I'm not going to get a largely emotionally based case--and one of the prices this project exacts is that those types of casesfor players are exceedingly tough to succeed with. All that said, if they fail again and you want to try one last time in the second chance (or VC?) opportunity for the franchise, you are welcome to do so.
    Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
    Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
    A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by jalbright View Post
      I know what standards I'm looking for, but I don't think it's outlandish for voters to expect several all-star type years or a MVP/Cy Young type year (especially the Cleon Jones model--in a surprise World Series year). Carter was a four time all-star with the Mets. Now, that arguably has something to do with 1) his reputation, and 2) his competition in the NL for a catching slot. Even so, he was a 4 time all-star. Franco was a one time all-star for the franchise, but closers are a bit limited, so perhaps that can be forgiven. Kranepool, though was only a one time all-star in 1965--probably the Met representative in a day when every team had at least one all-star. If you look at Kranepool's WAR, he never had a season as good as 2 WAR--and five is all-star level. In fact, his career WAR is 4.4. At that level of play, I don't care how long Kranepool was a Met. I'm not a Met fan, and I'm not going to get a largely emotionally based case--and one of the prices this project exacts is that those types of casesfor players are exceedingly tough to succeed with. All that said, if they fail again and you want to try one last time in the second chance (or VC?) opportunity for the franchise, you are welcome to do so.
      Okay, but you had some very questionable people on your Phillies ballots which is the team you are a fan of. It seems hypocritical to vote for the Philly Phanatic but ignore arguments for a person like John Franco or Ed Kranepool in a project that is obviously fan based and not numbers based. Do you really think that the people who own the Mets and operate the Mets HOF would elect someone who was not a significant part of NY Mets history?

      Comment


      • #18
        Think what you will. I've stated my reasoning, and my vote will stay as it is.

        I will say that the standards I used for Phillie players were precisely the same as I'm using for the Mets. I've tried to use similar standards for contributors, but the truth is at that level personal knowledge can affect who one supports (or doesn't). By Saam was a very long time broadcaster of Phillie games, but I wasn't going to beef about nobody else joining me in supporting him. Had he drawn some more support, I might have tried to make a case for him.

        If you had my vote for Kranepool, that would make three--and you currently would need seven to get him elected. It's quite clear I'm hardly one of the few standing in his way. As for Franco, I haven't been very supportive of relievers in this project, and he suffers from that as have all other relievers.
        Last edited by jalbright; 02-09-2012, 07:08 AM.
        Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
        Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
        A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

        Comment


        • #19
          I'll reluctantly cast a vote for 1 player:

          John Franco.

          I considered Orosco, who was effective, but I chose to vote for the guy who had a lot of identification with the Mets.

          I could definitely see not voting for anyone.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by jalbright View Post
            As for Franco, I haven't been very supportive of relievers in this project, and he suffers from that as have all other relievers.
            If you want to use WAR as your primary judge of worthiness, so be it. You voted for at least two people in the last Phillies round who had less WAR or similar WAR to John Franco:

            Dan Casey 20.8
            Von Hayes 27.1

            That is pretty consistently inconsistent and keep in mind that Franco managed to accumulate more WAR than Dan Casey who was a SP who basically had one good year in the pre-modern pitching distance era.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by jjpm74 View Post
              If you want to use WAR as your primary judge of worthiness, so be it. You voted for at least two people in the last Phillies round who had less WAR or similar WAR to John Franco:

              Dan Casey 20.8
              Von Hayes 27.1

              That is pretty consistently inconsistent and keep in mind that Franco managed to accumulate more WAR than Dan Casey who was a SP who basically had one good year in the pre-modern pitching distance era.
              It's not as inconsistent as you suggest. First, since this is only in terms of performance for the franchise, I consider only the WAR for the franchise. Franco was at his best as a Red, but that's irrelevant to whether he belongs in the Met HOF. I also look at peak performance for the franchise. Casey and Hayes had almost all their value with the Phillies, and within a span of 5 consecutive seasons. Let's look at Franco, Casey and Hayes with my main measures. I'll also throw in the weakest reliever I voted for, Kent Tekulve of the Pirates:

              Franco
              career WAR with franchise 12.8
              best 3 seasons of WAR with franchise 5.2
              best 5 consecutive WAR with franchise 7.2

              Casey
              career WAR with franchise 20.6
              best 3 seasons of WAR with franchise 19.0
              best 5 consecutive WAR with franchise 20.6

              Hayes
              career WAR with franchise 24.8
              best 3 seasons of WAR with franchise 13.1
              best 5 consecutive WAR with franchise 17.8

              Tekulve
              career WAR with franchise 18.8
              best 3 seasons of WAR with franchise 9.7
              best 5 consecutive WAR with franchise 11.4
              Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
              Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
              A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

              Comment


              • #22
                Tommy Agee
                Wally Backman
                Gary Carter
                Len Dykstra
                Jerry Grote
                Bud Harrelson
                Ron Hunt
                Ed Kranepool
                Dave Magadan
                Lee Mazzilli
                Tug McGraw
                Jesse Orosco
                Rusty Staub
                John Stearns
                Mookie Wilson

                Last time I went with newer guys, this time I go with older guys, stopping around the late 80s.

                Comment


                • #23
                  For me I didn't vote for Franco b/c my recollection is of his latter years where he was excrutiating and seemingly incapable of a 1-2-3 inning. Also something about him wearing his Brooklyn on his sleeve or the media doing it just rubbed me the wrong way. Juvenile perhaps but I figured since I blabbed on other stuff I may as well put in my 2 cents.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by jalbright View Post
                    Casey
                    career WAR with franchise 20.6
                    best 3 seasons of WAR with franchise 19.0
                    best 5 consecutive WAR with franchise 20.6
                    Dan Casey's career WAR with the Phillies franchise is 16.5. Not 20.6. His terrible batting accounts for a net loss of 4.1 when also factoring in his defense.

                    Bad batting plus the benefit of a shorter pitching distance puts him comfortably behind Franco in terms of value to the franchise, IMO and we all know that WAR is very suspect when looking at 19th century pitchers as it overstates their value to a given franchise. Pitchers were used until their arms fell apart in that generation for a reason. They were seen as expendable and had to have both feet on the ground when they threw. It is also important to factor in the fact that the rules for pitchers were changing dramatically during Casey's short career and that side arm and overhand pitching were brand new when he debuted:

                    PITCHING DISTANCE
                    1863 - 45 ft. from front line of pitcher's box to rear of home plate
                    1881 - 50 ft.
                    1887 - 55.5 ft.
                    1890 - 57 ft. (Player's League Only)
                    1893 - 60.5 ft. (Present Day Distance)

                    PITCHING MOTION
                    1845 - Underhand and must keep wrist stiff
                    1872 - Pitcher allowed to snap wrist making horizontal curve line
                    1879 - Pitcher prohibited from turning his back completely to batter during delivery
                    1884 - Side arm pitching motion allowed
                    1885 - Overhand pitching motion allowed (NL Only), both feet on ground during delivery
                    1887 - Pitcher must start delivery with one foot on back line of box
                    Last edited by jjpm74; 02-09-2012, 10:38 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by jjpm74 View Post
                      Okay, but you had some very questionable people on your Phillies ballots which is the team you are a fan of. It seems hypocritical to vote for the Philly Phanatic but ignore arguments for a person like John Franco or Ed Kranepool in a project that is obviously fan based and not numbers based. Do you really think that the people who own the Mets and operate the Mets HOF would elect someone who was not a significant part of NY Mets history?
                      I didn't have time to respond about Kranepool earlier. If we look at the three elements of WAR I use, he can't even come close to Franco:
                      career: 4.4
                      top 3: 5.1
                      top 5 consecutive: 4.7

                      That's not impressive for an everyday player, to say the least. If we dig into the WAR at bb-ref, we find that he had only four seasons where his total runs above replacement were less than the run differential between average and replacement for a player with as much playing time as he had:
                      1962 when both figures were 0 ( 6 PA);
                      1971 when he had three more runs above replacement than average for his playing time;
                      1975 when he had his highest total above replacement than average for his playing time, a whopping four runs; and
                      1976 when he had two more runs above replacement than an average player for his playing time.

                      All other seasons were below average by this measure. In other words, 1) it's being kind to say Kranepool was mediocre, and 2) Kranepool's one notable attribute was his ability to keep a job with the Mets. IMHO, putting Kranepool into the team HOF turns what should be an honor into a gold watch earned solely by a sufficient amount of playing time. I resolutely rrefuse to go there.

                      BTW, how many players even close to the level of Kranepool's play have you supported for any other franchise?
                      Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
                      Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
                      A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by jalbright View Post
                        I didn't have time to respond about Kranepool earlier. If we look at the three elements of WAR I use, he can't even come close to Franco:
                        career: 4.4
                        top 3: 5.1
                        top 5 consecutive: 4.7

                        That's not impressive for an everyday player, to say the least. If we dig into the WAR at bb-ref, we find that he had only four seasons where his total runs above replacement were less than the run differential between average and replacement for a player with as much playing time as he had:
                        1962 when both figures were 0 ( 6 PA);
                        1971 when he had three more runs above replacement than average for his playing time;
                        1975 when he had his highest total above replacement than average for his playing time, a whopping four runs; and
                        1976 when he had two more runs above replacement than an average player for his playing time.

                        All other seasons were below average by this measure. In other words, 1) it's being kind to say Kranepool was mediocre, and 2) Kranepool's one notable attribute was his ability to keep a job with the Mets. IMHO, putting Kranepool into the team HOF turns what should be an honor into a gold watch earned solely by a sufficient amount of playing time. I resolutely rrefuse to go there.

                        BTW, how many players even close to the level of Kranepool's play have you supported for any other franchise?
                        This is not mean to knock JJPM at all, but if you look at the Met board HOF (assuming you have 800 spare hours to kill) you will see fellows like Ron Hodges in there. I cannot quite explain it but some sort of spirit of 1962 lovable losers permeates and I cannot say I have been completely unaffected. Part of Kranepool's mystique is the coming straight out of HS in NYC in 1962 and lasting til around 1980. Would he be more or less = to Tom Hutton on the Phillies?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by jalbright View Post
                          BTW, how many players even close to the level of Kranepool's play have you supported for any other franchise?
                          It depends on which statistic you are asking about. I haven't been using WAR for this project. I've been mostly relying on all time leader categories for a given franchise, whether or not they are in their team's HOF, etc...

                          My focus, though is on John Franco and you really haven't given much of an argument as to what makes a 19th century hurler who's WAR with the Phillies is a whopping 3.8 points away from Franco's with the Mets more valuable than someone who was a fan favorite, played in the modern era, was regarded as a team leader, and is in that franchise's actual Hall of fame beyond saying that you don't like relievers (unless they happen to play for the Phillies).
                          Last edited by jjpm74; 02-09-2012, 02:13 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            You are running away from Kranepool, as well you might. I didn't vote for Tugger for either the Phils or Mets, and I loved the guy. Tekulve played late in his career for the Phils, but he was significantly better than Franco--and popular with the Pirate fans, to all I ever saw. He's the bottom of the level of reliever I want to vote for. If you don't like Casey, fine. If I have to choose between either voting for both Franco and Casey or voting for neither, I'd prefer to vote for neither, as Casey was a borderline case for me. If Franco had been as good with the Mets as Tekulve was for the Pirates, I'd vote for him. He wasn't, and I won't. As it stands, whether I do or don't vote for him, he won't get elected anyway, in part because some Met fans in this project left him off their ballots also.

                            I will also note that part of my argument for Casey dealt with the peak. Casey concentrated his contribution, which Franco did not. Casey's peak is superior to Franco's IMHO, and that is enough for me to put him in and Franco out. If you don't like that approach, you have a right to your opinion, just as I have a right to mine.

                            BTW, I don't like the insinuation about Phillie relievers. It's beneath you. By way of further reply, please name a Phillie reliever I voted for other than Tekulve, whom I voted for only in the Pirate election.
                            Last edited by jalbright; 02-09-2012, 02:24 PM.
                            Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
                            Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
                            A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by PVNICK View Post
                              This is not mean to knock JJPM at all, but if you look at the Met board HOF (assuming you have 800 spare hours to kill) you will see fellows like Ron Hodges in there. I cannot quite explain it but some sort of spirit of 1962 lovable losers permeates and I cannot say I have been completely unaffected. Part of Kranepool's mystique is the coming straight out of HS in NYC in 1962 and lasting til around 1980. Would he be more or less = to Tom Hutton on the Phillies?
                              The 1962, 1969 and 1986 Mets seem to get the most attention from the fans of the team.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by PVNICK View Post
                                This is not mean to knock JJPM at all, but if you look at the Met board HOF (assuming you have 800 spare hours to kill) you will see fellows like Ron Hodges in there. I cannot quite explain it but some sort of spirit of 1962 lovable losers permeates and I cannot say I have been completely unaffected. Part of Kranepool's mystique is the coming straight out of HS in NYC in 1962 and lasting til around 1980. Would he be more or less = to Tom Hutton on the Phillies?
                                The closest comparison I can see to Kranepool's nearly 6000 PA is Tony Taylor. Now, Tony was a versatile infielder, but he played a long time in Philly, hustled and was popular--but nothing more than a nice player to have around. He had 11.9 career WAR in Philly, 8.2 in his best three years, and 6.2 in his best 5 consecutive. That's way better than Kranepool.

                                I did see the Met HOF here at BBF, but when I saw how many guys they had elected (IIRC it was at least 40), I lost my interest in using that as a measuring stick.
                                Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
                                Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
                                A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X