Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BBF Ranking Game – Election #24 – Voting

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by dgarza View Post

    Ok, I see where you are getting that.

    I was wondering if there someplace on BB-Ref where BB-Ref actually said for itself that it considered Edmonds a "solid" HOF.


    The only place I see on BB-Ref where it even begins to hint at what amount of WAR might relate to HOF-worthiness his here :

    Center Field (15th):
    60.4 career WAR / 42.6 7yr-peak WAR / 51.5 JAWS
    Average HOF CF (out of 19):
    71.3 career WAR / 44.7 7yr-peak WAR / 58.0 JAWS

    This is more reporting where players stack up ----- it's not BB-Ref actually endorcing any specific HOF-parameters.
    But looking at this, the average HOF-CF has low 70s total career WAR. A player with low 60s WAR is noticabely below that average. That's not the strongest suggestion that Edmonds is a "solid" HOF. I personally have him as a lower-tier HOFer.
    Santo is on track to be elected this round, but was Ronnie really better than Jimmy Baseball?

    RS: 9396 PA @ 126 wRC+, good to excellent defensively, slight negative baserunning.
    JE: 7980 PA @ 132 wRC+, good to excellent defensively, neutral to slight negative baserunning.

    Santo has two filler years (1 beginning, 1 end of career), Edmonds a cup of coffee season, extrapolating 1972, 1994, and 1995 to full seasons, we get the following:

    RS: 8619 PA @ 130 wRC+
    JE: 8118 PA @ 132 wRC+
    Edmonds edge in quality, Santo in quantity.

    Top years, wRC+:
    RS: 164, 157, 153, 145, 140, 134, 130, 129, 119
    JE: 168, 157, 156, 149, 148, 139, 125, 124, 124, a 134* in 483 PA
    Edmonds bests Santo in peak quality, though Santo helps offsets with better in-season durability.

    Context:
    Clutch at B-R - Santo at -3.7 wins, Edmonds -4.7 wins,
    rrOPS+ park - Santo at -11.8 wins, Edmonds 0.1 wins.

    Postseason:
    Santo none, Edmonds 263 PA, .874 OPS (3% below career avg), .51 WPA, ~1.5-2 wins per Thress.


    Context neutral, these guys are very similar in hitting value, rolling in park and post-season, I give an edge to Edmonds.
    Base-running doesn't move the needle much, but I'd give a small edge to Jimmy.
    I'd give a small edge to accomplishing this in CF vs 3B.

    Defense:
    B-R, B-G, T-T wins, avg:

    RS: 4.0, 2.8, 2.8 - 3.2
    JE: 3.2, 10.2, 7.2 - 6.9

    They are similar by TZ, by DRA and T-T show Edmonds by a healthy margin.
    I'll take Jimmy on defense.

    For those supporting Santo, where do you prefer him to Edmonds?
    Jacquelyn Eva Marchand (1983-2017)
    http://www.tezakfuneralhome.com/noti...uelyn-Marchand

    Comment


    • #17
      1. Buck Ewing
      2. Max Scherzer
      3. Jack Glasscock
      4. Ron Santo
      5. Jim Edmonds
      6. Bobby Grich
      7. Zack Grienke
      8. Lou Whitaker
      9. Craig Biggio
      10. Whitey Ford
      11. Monte Irvin
      12. Mordecai Brown
      13. Willie Stargell
      14. Gary Sheffield
      15. Mule Suttles
      16. Rafael Palmeiro
      RIP Dave Niehaus
      RIP Gary Moore

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Jar of Flies View Post

        Santo is on track to be elected this round, but was Ronnie really better than Jimmy Baseball?

        RS: 9396 PA @ 126 wRC+, good to excellent defensively, slight negative baserunning.
        JE: 7980 PA @ 132 wRC+, good to excellent defensively, neutral to slight negative baserunning.

        Santo has two filler years (1 beginning, 1 end of career), Edmonds a cup of coffee season, extrapolating 1972, 1994, and 1995 to full seasons, we get the following:

        RS: 8619 PA @ 130 wRC+
        JE: 8118 PA @ 132 wRC+
        Edmonds edge in quality, Santo in quantity.

        Top years, wRC+:
        RS: 164, 157, 153, 145, 140, 134, 130, 129, 119
        JE: 168, 157, 156, 149, 148, 139, 125, 124, 124, a 134* in 483 PA
        Edmonds bests Santo in peak quality, though Santo helps offsets with better in-season durability.

        Context:
        Clutch at B-R - Santo at -3.7 wins, Edmonds -4.7 wins,
        rrOPS+ park - Santo at -11.8 wins, Edmonds 0.1 wins.

        Postseason:
        Santo none, Edmonds 263 PA, .874 OPS (3% below career avg), .51 WPA, ~1.5-2 wins per Thress.


        Context neutral, these guys are very similar in hitting value, rolling in park and post-season, I give an edge to Edmonds.
        Base-running doesn't move the needle much, but I'd give a small edge to Jimmy.
        I'd give a small edge to accomplishing this in CF vs 3B.

        Defense:
        B-R, B-G, T-T wins, avg:

        RS: 4.0, 2.8, 2.8 - 3.2
        JE: 3.2, 10.2, 7.2 - 6.9

        They are similar by TZ, by DRA and T-T show Edmonds by a healthy margin.
        I'll take Jimmy on defense.

        For those supporting Santo, where do you prefer him to Edmonds?
        Great question; I guess you could say I'm judging both conservatively via the uberstats, where Santo has a consistently stronger peak via bWAR/bWAA and fWAR before the wheels start to fall off beginning in 1968 (the Home/Road splits suggest that they're being too generous with that year, though he's clearly docked offensively with both). I agree that Edmonds deserves more defensive credit, and Santo clearly benefited from Wrigley (though perhaps the effect is overstated prior to 1968); and that does help bridge the gap--but there's still enough of a gap that I'm unwilling to make that leap at this point. You make some great points, though, and I'll definitely continue to mull them over.

        On a related note, I really need to buy Thress' book and take a deep dive into his methodologies.
        RIP Dave Niehaus
        RIP Gary Moore

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Jar of Flies View Post

          Santo is on track to be elected this round, but was Ronnie really better than Jimmy Baseball?

          RS: 9396 PA @ 126 wRC+, good to excellent defensively, slight negative baserunning.
          JE: 7980 PA @ 132 wRC+, good to excellent defensively, neutral to slight negative baserunning.
          Given the 1,416 additional PAs Santo has, I think that gives him the win here.



          Santo has two filler years (1 beginning, 1 end of career), Edmonds a cup of coffee season, extrapolating 1972, 1994, and 1995 to full seasons, we get the following:

          RS: 8619 PA @ 130 wRC+
          JE: 8118 PA @ 132 wRC+
          Edmonds edge in quality, Santo in quantity.
          I don't extrapolate those shortened seasons for my ranking, but I think the PA bulk of Santo does give him the edge here (at worst, it's a draw).



          Top years, wRC+:
          RS: 164, 157, 153, 145, 140, 134, 130, 129, 119
          JE: 168, 157, 156, 149, 148, 139, 125, 124, 124, a 134* in 483 PA
          Edmonds bests Santo in peak quality, though Santo helps offsets with better in-season durability.
          Santo's in-season durability definitely shows his peak was better to me. The PA difference in the top 5 of these seasons is significant. Looking at his top 5 wRC+ seasons, Edmonds has just 2 years with 600+ PAs (643 & 612), while Santo has 4 years in his top 5 wRC+ seasons with more PAs than Edmonds's most (ranging from 704-672). For me, this would be part of why I see Santo's peak as noticeably higher.


          Context:
          Clutch at B-R - Santo at -3.7 wins, Edmonds -4.7 wins,
          rrOPS+ park - Santo at -11.8 wins, Edmonds 0.1 wins.
          Looks like Santo wins one and Edmonds wins the other.

          Postseason:
          Santo none, Edmonds 263 PA, .874 OPS (3% below career avg), .51 WPA, ~1.5-2 wins per Thress.
          Even more so than the RBI, getting into the post-season is completely team dependent. Since Santo never made it to the post-season, I think comparing the two here isn't really practical.


          Context neutral, these guys are very similar in hitting value, rolling in park and post-season, I give an edge to Edmonds.
          Base-running doesn't move the needle much, but I'd give a small edge to Jimmy.
          I'd give a small edge to accomplishing this in CF vs 3B.

          Defense:
          B-R, B-G, T-T wins, avg:

          RS: 4.0, 2.8, 2.8 - 3.2
          JE: 3.2, 10.2, 7.2 - 6.9

          They are similar by TZ, by DRA and T-T show Edmonds by a healthy margin.
          I'll take Jimmy on defense.
          I think on defense, Santo was better at peak then Edmonds. But Santo was also pretty much done by age 30, whereas Edmonds lasted into his mid-30, some 1/3 longer (given the ages they started at). I can see taking Edmonds here.

          For those supporting Santo, where do you prefer him to Edmonds?
          For me, Santo's peak speaks too much to me. So it's Santo for me.
          Good post, BTW.
          Last edited by dgarza; 08-01-2020, 09:44 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Likewise to your excellent post dgarza, having Santo ahead is fine, the hope is that Edmonds is seen as a little better or a little worse than Ronnie, giving Edmonds a shot at election next go around.
            Jacquelyn Eva Marchand (1983-2017)
            http://www.tezakfuneralhome.com/noti...uelyn-Marchand

            Comment


            • #21
              We have now ranked the top 150 players in history. Here are the results of Election #24 in the BBF Ranking Game:
              Rk Winners Pts Ave StdDev
              143. Max Scherzer 132 3.8 3.49
              144. Ron Santo 111 5.9 2.85
              145. Lou Whitaker 108 6.2 3.05
              146. Bobby Grich 104 6.6 3.60
              147. Zack Greinke 103 6.7 3.30
              148. Craig Biggio 96 7.4 2.80
              149. Whitey Ford 94 7.6 3.75
              150. Rafael Palmeiro 88 8.2 5.65
              On Election #25 ballot
              Gary Sheffield 77 9.3 4.85
              Buck Ewing 75 9.5 6.31
              Mordecai Brown 68 10.2 5.01
              Jim Edmonds 66 10.4 4.43
              Jack Glasscock 65 10.5 5.06
              Mule Suttles 61 10.9 4.38
              Willie Stargell 58 11.2 3.52
              Back in Nominating pool
              Monte Irvin 54 11.6 4.33
              Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam, circumspice.

              Comprehensive Reform for the Veterans Committee -- Fixing the Hall continued.

              Comment

              Ad Widget

              Collapse
              Working...
              X