Finals time has a funny way of catching up with me. It makes for little posting here. Oh well. Also, I think I'm supposed to have an obligatory Ryan Braun post, but I'm not going to do that. I'm not emotionally ready, for one. Second, I would like MLB to make its decision before I say anything. That's all I have to say about that for now. On to the topic at hand.
It's that time of year for one of my favorite topics: the Baseball Hall of Fame elections. As anyone who hangs around in the baseball corners of these here internets knows, Ron Santo was recently elected by the Veterans' Committee by an overwhelming vote, with 15/16 voters saying "yes" to the longtime (and now, unfortunately, deceased) Cubs player/fan/announcer (who did play one year for the White Sox).
As for Santo, he was clearly a great player. Whether or not he deserves enshrinement is perhaps a different discussion, but I will say this: using the current statistical standards of the Hall of Fame, Ron Santo easily merits admission. Whether or not that standard is a good or bad one is a topic for a different post (hopefully up later this week). What I'd like to talk about, and what's particularly relevant in the case of Santo, I think, is what it is okay and not okay to consider when making a Hall of Fame vote.
First, let me link to the Hall of Fame's website, where the voting instructions for the BBWAA are listed.
You may notice some interesting things on there. For one, and I did not know this, there is nothing in the guidelines that the player must have been "outstanding" or even "good." There's nothing at all about performance. Interesting on all sides of the Hall of Fame debates, no? There are just the time constraints (been retired for five years, only 15 years on the ballot, 10 year playing career). But really, ethically, what's acceptable to do? That's what I'd like to talk about.
1. Playing ability
Obvious, no? But let's start with the obvious. You need to consider it. If we ignored it, I'm sure things would be a lot different. Perhaps "ability" isn't even the best word: I suppose "results" would do better. And the way we measure these things are statistics. So a player's statistics should count more than anything.
2. Circumstances
Broad category, and I apologize for that, but I can't help it. What I mean here is the basics: era, position, and extenuating circumstances. This helps to flesh out #1. Was his career interrupted by war? Injury? Segregation? Was the schedule shorter? Longer? Are there accurate statistics for this player? Were steroids or other drugs an issue? You may adjust (or not) for any and all of these things as you see fit, but it IS important to keep them in mind.
3. Subjective opinions
Obviously, we can use our own opinions here. Keep in mind, this is the THIRD criterion. That means that the other two trump it. Even so, sometimes it's helpful to check these things. Especially for the players for whom there is little or no data. It can be very beneficial for borderline players. And if we haven't seen a player play, it's nice to read what others said about him. However, keep in mind that this is not the primary way in which we measure a Hall of Fame player.
So, what can we NOT do to measure the Hall of Fame candidacy of a player?
1. Artificially raise the standards for enshrinement
Once standards have been set, it's not fair to artificially raise them. You can't all of a sudden start not electing people who are clearly eligible. However, if standards are deemed too high and need to be lowered, that can absolutely be done.
2. Consider a player's character
This is the one I'm sure I'll get the most flack for. People will say that OF COURSE you have to account for a player's character. But the truth is, we don't know anything about these people. We see them in the little snippets. We hear what others have to say about them. We "learn" things like "he's a racist" or "he's a druggie." But we don't know what led to those things. If it adversely affected his performance or baseball overall, so be it (maybe Pete Rose, or Joe Jackson, or Cap Anson would qualify under either of these). If not, though, it probably should not be considered.
So those are my thoughts. Any opinions out there?
Monday, December 12, 2011
Friday, November 25, 2011
Longest NFL Win Streaks
So, not living in Wisconsin anymore, I've been a little out of the loop. I mean, don't get me wrong - I watch the Packers pretty much every week (although once in a while, living in Chicago, I don't actually get the games, and I'm not always free to just go to a bar). I at least always follow a play-by-play online.
Anyway, I'm writing about the NFL today because of a couple of things. First, I haven't written about anything besides baseball in a really REALLY long time. Second, it seems like a good time to do it. Anyway, I've been wondering what the longest winning streak in NFL history is. Honestly, it's pretty hard to find. At the moment, SI has a gallery of the longest single-season winning streaks, and that's pretty neat, but not what I'm looking for. So I looked elsewhere online. Everyone knows the longest regular season winning streaks and keeps track of those. But what about the longest OVERALL streaks? At the current time, I have yet to find it. So, I went digging. Using only my knowledge of teams who happened to win a lot of games, I found some pretty long streaks. I think this is pretty complete.
First of all, if we allow for going WAY back, and not even to the NFL, the Cleveland Browns of the AAFC once won 18 in a row - the end of the 1947 season, and all 14 (plus one playoff) in 1948. They tied the opener, then won four in a row to start 1949, giving them a 22-0-1 record in a span of 23 games. Of course, it wasn't the NFL, but they still rocked it, and won 18 in a row. Of course, is that as good as the 1985-86 Bears going 24-1 over a 25 game stretch? Probably not, in a more competitive league. But regardless, those have blemishes. These do not. And like I said, I'm fairly certain these are ALL the streaks of 15 or more consecutive wins in NFL history. Here you go!
The 1971 Dolphins lost the Super Bowl. So the started with a blank streak. But of course, the went undefeated, including playoffs, to win the title. The didn't lose until week two the following year.
1972-73 Dolphins: 15 games
The 2004 Pittsburgh Steelers will, undoubtedly be the oddest team on this list. They lost in week two. They lost the AFC Championship Game. They're utterly forgettable. Except, of course, that they won all 15 games they played in between.
2004 Pittsburgh Steelers: 15 games
Perhaps it's because the '72 Dolphins had already filled the need for a football team with a long winning streak, but their Super-Bowl-era record winning streak was eclipsed later in the same decade. The 1976 Oakland Raiders were absolutely CRUSHED by the Patriots in week three. Apparently, that made the mad enough to win their next 13 in a row, including the Super Bowl. It carried over to 1977, when they started 4-0.
1976-77 Oakland Raiders: 17 games
Now, of course, the failure of the 2004 Steelers reminds us of an even greater failure, and a longer streak. What can be said about the 2007 Pats that hasn't already been said? This, by the way, is the most familiar and most recent of our 18-gamers. It's also the only one that doesn't include a championship with it.
2007 New England Patriots: 18 games
The 1933 Chicago Bears won their last five games, to win the NFL Championship. That probably wouldn't mean anything special, except they also won all 13 of their regular season games in 1934 (they lost to the Giants in the NFL Championship Game). They were the first team to win 18 in a row.
1933-34 Chicago Bears: 18 games
In a somewhat eerie repeat for the franchise, the 1941 Bears won their last seven (Championship Game inclusive), and went undefeated the following year, only to lose the Championship Game, this time to the Redskins.
1941-42 Chicago Bears: 18 games
The 1989 49ers are, for whatever reason, not often considered to be among the best teams of all-time. But, during the season, they lost once by 1, and again by 4. After that 4-point loss to the Packers, they reeled off 8 straight. Then they began 1990 10-0. Although they would eventually lose in the NFC Championship game that year, in many ways, this was the crowning achievement of the 49ers dynasty under Bill Walsh and George Seifert.
1989-90 San Francisco 49ers: 18 games
Finally, other than the 2007 Patriots, can you name the most recent team to win 18 consecutive games? By the way, this team is also interesting because it's the only team on this entire list other than the 1972-73 Dolphins and the last team (I'll let the suspense keep building) to have streaks which covered two seasons, and to actually WIN the title in both seasons. That's right: the 1997-98 Broncos won 18 straight. They won their final regular season game of 1997 heading into the playoffs. Then they won four in a row, including upsetting the heavily favored Packers in the Super Bowl, in one of the best Super Bowls ever played. Then, they began the 1998 season 13-0 before losing two in a row. They recovered to win their final regular season game, and breezed through the playoffs, outscoring their opponents 95-32.
1997-98 Denver Broncos: 18 games
Finally, there's one team that absolutely DWARFED the 18 game streaks of other teams. Many people forget, I think, because they didn't start either season particularly hot. In 2004, they won their first 6 games. But that's nothing that special. It happens almost every year. And in '03, they had started out 2-2. Of course, after that 2-2 start, the New England Patriots won 15 straight, including the Super Bowl, and then the first six the following year. It's kind of unbelievable that Bill Belichick has presided over the two longest winning streaks in NFL history, but it's true. So this is the standard. Oh, and of course the 2004 Pats were repeat champs, like the Broncos and Dolphins before them, so that have that going for them, too.
Finally, why have I written all this? Well, the Green Bay Packers have, as of Thanksgiving day 2011, tied the 1976-77 Raiders with 17 straight wins. They will have a very tough game against the NFC East-leading Giants to tie the record. What will the fate of this Packers team be? Will they tie the 18-game mark against the Giants? Surpass it against the Raiders? Can they possibly catch the 2003-04 Dolphins (they'd have to keep winning, and they would tie it on Christmas day versus the Bears - to pass the Pats, they'd have to go undefeated, beating the Lions in week 17)? Will they join the 1934 and 1942 Bears by having undefeated seasons following a Championship? Will the buck the trend of those two teams, and follow in the lead of the 1973 Dolphins and 1998 Broncos and 2004 Patriots and win back-to-back titles? Or will they carve out some completely new, uncharted legacy? We will have to see between now and the Super Bowl. But no matter what the outcome, I think it's safe to say the 2010-2011 Packers have etched their names among the elite teams in NFL history already, regardless of how it all turns out.
2010-2011 Packers: 17 games (and counting?)
Anyway, I'm writing about the NFL today because of a couple of things. First, I haven't written about anything besides baseball in a really REALLY long time. Second, it seems like a good time to do it. Anyway, I've been wondering what the longest winning streak in NFL history is. Honestly, it's pretty hard to find. At the moment, SI has a gallery of the longest single-season winning streaks, and that's pretty neat, but not what I'm looking for. So I looked elsewhere online. Everyone knows the longest regular season winning streaks and keeps track of those. But what about the longest OVERALL streaks? At the current time, I have yet to find it. So, I went digging. Using only my knowledge of teams who happened to win a lot of games, I found some pretty long streaks. I think this is pretty complete.
First of all, if we allow for going WAY back, and not even to the NFL, the Cleveland Browns of the AAFC once won 18 in a row - the end of the 1947 season, and all 14 (plus one playoff) in 1948. They tied the opener, then won four in a row to start 1949, giving them a 22-0-1 record in a span of 23 games. Of course, it wasn't the NFL, but they still rocked it, and won 18 in a row. Of course, is that as good as the 1985-86 Bears going 24-1 over a 25 game stretch? Probably not, in a more competitive league. But regardless, those have blemishes. These do not. And like I said, I'm fairly certain these are ALL the streaks of 15 or more consecutive wins in NFL history. Here you go!
The 1971 Dolphins lost the Super Bowl. So the started with a blank streak. But of course, the went undefeated, including playoffs, to win the title. The didn't lose until week two the following year.
1972-73 Dolphins: 15 games
The 2004 Pittsburgh Steelers will, undoubtedly be the oddest team on this list. They lost in week two. They lost the AFC Championship Game. They're utterly forgettable. Except, of course, that they won all 15 games they played in between.
2004 Pittsburgh Steelers: 15 games
Perhaps it's because the '72 Dolphins had already filled the need for a football team with a long winning streak, but their Super-Bowl-era record winning streak was eclipsed later in the same decade. The 1976 Oakland Raiders were absolutely CRUSHED by the Patriots in week three. Apparently, that made the mad enough to win their next 13 in a row, including the Super Bowl. It carried over to 1977, when they started 4-0.
1976-77 Oakland Raiders: 17 games
Now, of course, the failure of the 2004 Steelers reminds us of an even greater failure, and a longer streak. What can be said about the 2007 Pats that hasn't already been said? This, by the way, is the most familiar and most recent of our 18-gamers. It's also the only one that doesn't include a championship with it.
2007 New England Patriots: 18 games
The 1933 Chicago Bears won their last five games, to win the NFL Championship. That probably wouldn't mean anything special, except they also won all 13 of their regular season games in 1934 (they lost to the Giants in the NFL Championship Game). They were the first team to win 18 in a row.
1933-34 Chicago Bears: 18 games
In a somewhat eerie repeat for the franchise, the 1941 Bears won their last seven (Championship Game inclusive), and went undefeated the following year, only to lose the Championship Game, this time to the Redskins.
1941-42 Chicago Bears: 18 games
The 1989 49ers are, for whatever reason, not often considered to be among the best teams of all-time. But, during the season, they lost once by 1, and again by 4. After that 4-point loss to the Packers, they reeled off 8 straight. Then they began 1990 10-0. Although they would eventually lose in the NFC Championship game that year, in many ways, this was the crowning achievement of the 49ers dynasty under Bill Walsh and George Seifert.
1989-90 San Francisco 49ers: 18 games
Finally, other than the 2007 Patriots, can you name the most recent team to win 18 consecutive games? By the way, this team is also interesting because it's the only team on this entire list other than the 1972-73 Dolphins and the last team (I'll let the suspense keep building) to have streaks which covered two seasons, and to actually WIN the title in both seasons. That's right: the 1997-98 Broncos won 18 straight. They won their final regular season game of 1997 heading into the playoffs. Then they won four in a row, including upsetting the heavily favored Packers in the Super Bowl, in one of the best Super Bowls ever played. Then, they began the 1998 season 13-0 before losing two in a row. They recovered to win their final regular season game, and breezed through the playoffs, outscoring their opponents 95-32.
1997-98 Denver Broncos: 18 games
Finally, there's one team that absolutely DWARFED the 18 game streaks of other teams. Many people forget, I think, because they didn't start either season particularly hot. In 2004, they won their first 6 games. But that's nothing that special. It happens almost every year. And in '03, they had started out 2-2. Of course, after that 2-2 start, the New England Patriots won 15 straight, including the Super Bowl, and then the first six the following year. It's kind of unbelievable that Bill Belichick has presided over the two longest winning streaks in NFL history, but it's true. So this is the standard. Oh, and of course the 2004 Pats were repeat champs, like the Broncos and Dolphins before them, so that have that going for them, too.
Finally, why have I written all this? Well, the Green Bay Packers have, as of Thanksgiving day 2011, tied the 1976-77 Raiders with 17 straight wins. They will have a very tough game against the NFC East-leading Giants to tie the record. What will the fate of this Packers team be? Will they tie the 18-game mark against the Giants? Surpass it against the Raiders? Can they possibly catch the 2003-04 Dolphins (they'd have to keep winning, and they would tie it on Christmas day versus the Bears - to pass the Pats, they'd have to go undefeated, beating the Lions in week 17)? Will they join the 1934 and 1942 Bears by having undefeated seasons following a Championship? Will the buck the trend of those two teams, and follow in the lead of the 1973 Dolphins and 1998 Broncos and 2004 Patriots and win back-to-back titles? Or will they carve out some completely new, uncharted legacy? We will have to see between now and the Super Bowl. But no matter what the outcome, I think it's safe to say the 2010-2011 Packers have etched their names among the elite teams in NFL history already, regardless of how it all turns out.
2010-2011 Packers: 17 games (and counting?)
Friday, November 11, 2011
Warning . . . warning . . . EXTREME stat nerd post!!!
Are there two more irritating words in today's sports lexicon than "overrated" and "underrated?" I use them all the time, so I'm as guilty as anyone else. But here's the thing: when referring to numbers, any argument using the words "overrated" or "underrated" will inevitably put the cart before the horse by assuming a conclusion before looking at the evidence.
For example, there's an article up on Fangraphs right now about the 2011 Phillies rotation, claiming it's the best rotation ever. I'm not here to argue about that, actually, although it might be fun. What I am here to talk about is the comments.
[As an aside, let me just note right now that my life would be a lot happier, and yours would be, too, if we never read internet comments. There are a LOT of stupid people posting stuff on the internet. In order, I would say ignore comments about: religion, then politics, then sports. Seriously, it would save me a lot of stress, but for whatever reason, I can't stop reading comments. Please, do as I say, not as I do, and save yourself a lot of headaches.]
In said comments, there are a number of people near what is now the bottom talking about how certain FIP statistics "underrate" the Maddux-Glavine-Smoltz Braves. Interesting. How can that be? Statistics, believe it or not, don't "rate" anything, at least not in the sense to which these commenters are referring. HR don't "underrate" Babe Ruth's power. They don't "overrate" Hank Aaron's. They are a record of how many of a certain type of hit happened. That's it. They're not "rating" anyone. If people choose to interpret those statistics in such a way as to rate players/rotations/infields/outfields/ballparks/players/stadium food/Jumbotron race competitors/anything else you can think of, that's a problem of the analysis of statistics.
But, frankly, no one thinks about it that way. Instead, commenters on Fangraphs say that FIP "underrates" the Maddux-Glavine-Smoltz Braves because the numbers for them are lower than for a HANDFUL (like three) other rotations. FIP has a vendetta against the Braves. Did you know that? It goes in and deletes strikeouts! I know that's not what people mean, but that's how it comes across. Because you see what happens is people form a conclusion. In this case, "The Maddux-Glavine-Smoltz Braves had the best rotation of all time." Then, they go look at the evidence. They find support (ERA-, for example, or WAR - go read the article and see), and they're pleased. Then, they see counter-evidence. "Oh no! I already have my conclusion!" they cry. "Therefore, these statistics must be UNDERRATING my solution to the problem."
Well, that's just wrong. FIP is a statistical measure that takes into account strikeouts, walks, and home runs. The Braves didn't walk too many people, and they (comparatively) never gave up home runs (in the biggest HR era of all-time). But you know what? They really didn't strike anyone out (comparatively speaking, and in the biggest strikeout era of all-time). So FIP- (FIP relative to league average) ranks the 2011 Phillies first. And you know what else? It's more likely that the 1997 Braves (who fare the best of the 1990s Braves) are OVERRATED than it is that FIP UNDERRATES them. The Braves had great defenses, and their pitchers couldn't strike anyone out, so it worked out totally fine to allow a ton of balls in play, as long as they didn't leave the park. The Braves used that MO for the entirety of the Bobby Cox era, and it worked beautifully. The Twins used that same formula from the day Johan Santana left until today. It worked well until 2011, when the defense sucked. And you know what happened? Carl Pavano went from being lauded as a great pitcher in 2010 to a lousy one in 2011. Carl Pavano didn't really change. His defense did. And if Greg Maddux's defense had been different, history would probably "underrate" him, too.
Look, it's really quibbling over spilled milk. The thing most people are offended by is that the Braves are considered the 2nd-, or maybe 3rd-best rotation ever. That's AMAZING!!! There have been literally thousands of rotations in the history of baseball. To say that you're one of the three best is an accomplishment most people wouldn't dream of. But for those who "know" that the Braves are the best, anything but the top spot is unacceptable. And that's just unreasonable.
For example, there's an article up on Fangraphs right now about the 2011 Phillies rotation, claiming it's the best rotation ever. I'm not here to argue about that, actually, although it might be fun. What I am here to talk about is the comments.
[As an aside, let me just note right now that my life would be a lot happier, and yours would be, too, if we never read internet comments. There are a LOT of stupid people posting stuff on the internet. In order, I would say ignore comments about: religion, then politics, then sports. Seriously, it would save me a lot of stress, but for whatever reason, I can't stop reading comments. Please, do as I say, not as I do, and save yourself a lot of headaches.]
In said comments, there are a number of people near what is now the bottom talking about how certain FIP statistics "underrate" the Maddux-Glavine-Smoltz Braves. Interesting. How can that be? Statistics, believe it or not, don't "rate" anything, at least not in the sense to which these commenters are referring. HR don't "underrate" Babe Ruth's power. They don't "overrate" Hank Aaron's. They are a record of how many of a certain type of hit happened. That's it. They're not "rating" anyone. If people choose to interpret those statistics in such a way as to rate players/rotations/infields/outfields/ballparks/players/stadium food/Jumbotron race competitors/anything else you can think of, that's a problem of the analysis of statistics.
But, frankly, no one thinks about it that way. Instead, commenters on Fangraphs say that FIP "underrates" the Maddux-Glavine-Smoltz Braves because the numbers for them are lower than for a HANDFUL (like three) other rotations. FIP has a vendetta against the Braves. Did you know that? It goes in and deletes strikeouts! I know that's not what people mean, but that's how it comes across. Because you see what happens is people form a conclusion. In this case, "The Maddux-Glavine-Smoltz Braves had the best rotation of all time." Then, they go look at the evidence. They find support (ERA-, for example, or WAR - go read the article and see), and they're pleased. Then, they see counter-evidence. "Oh no! I already have my conclusion!" they cry. "Therefore, these statistics must be UNDERRATING my solution to the problem."
Well, that's just wrong. FIP is a statistical measure that takes into account strikeouts, walks, and home runs. The Braves didn't walk too many people, and they (comparatively) never gave up home runs (in the biggest HR era of all-time). But you know what? They really didn't strike anyone out (comparatively speaking, and in the biggest strikeout era of all-time). So FIP- (FIP relative to league average) ranks the 2011 Phillies first. And you know what else? It's more likely that the 1997 Braves (who fare the best of the 1990s Braves) are OVERRATED than it is that FIP UNDERRATES them. The Braves had great defenses, and their pitchers couldn't strike anyone out, so it worked out totally fine to allow a ton of balls in play, as long as they didn't leave the park. The Braves used that MO for the entirety of the Bobby Cox era, and it worked beautifully. The Twins used that same formula from the day Johan Santana left until today. It worked well until 2011, when the defense sucked. And you know what happened? Carl Pavano went from being lauded as a great pitcher in 2010 to a lousy one in 2011. Carl Pavano didn't really change. His defense did. And if Greg Maddux's defense had been different, history would probably "underrate" him, too.
Look, it's really quibbling over spilled milk. The thing most people are offended by is that the Braves are considered the 2nd-, or maybe 3rd-best rotation ever. That's AMAZING!!! There have been literally thousands of rotations in the history of baseball. To say that you're one of the three best is an accomplishment most people wouldn't dream of. But for those who "know" that the Braves are the best, anything but the top spot is unacceptable. And that's just unreasonable.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
BBWAA Hall of Fame Standards for Hitters, Part II
So, I've been thinking about my last post, and I had some problems with it. First, it definitely weighted career length way too highly. So, I was trying to think of a remedy. I though, "should I square the decimal (generated by averaging batting average, secondary average, and R+RBI/AB), or should I take the square root of playing time?" I wound up doing both. This definitely weights production much more heavily than career length, and should give some relief to some of the odder choices the first system made. Then I multiplied the whole thing by 100, just to make the numbers friendlier. Here are the highlights from each position.
For example, I assumed the lowest scoring catcher would be Roy Campanella. He was. But I was surprised to see that Mickey Cochrane scored as low as he did. However, with the new system, the catcher who scores lowest is actually not Campanella, but rather Gary Carter. I suspect that, if you ask most baseball writers who they would rather have in the Hall, Carter or Campy, they would pick Campy. The system now reflects that. The old system left Hank Greenberg out in the cold. The new version ranks him behind only Lou Gehrig and Jimmie Foxx, in spite of his short career. The new system ranks Jackie Robinson near the middle of the 2B crowd, rather than at the end. The old system didn't like Wade Boggs - the new one ranks him above Brooks Robinson. Keeping in mind that my system (obviously) only ranks players as hitters, this makes total sense. At SS, Rabbit Maranville and Ozzie Smith move behind Lou Boudreau. In LF, Ted Williams comes in first (as it should be), while Ralph Kiner gets an unexpected bump. I don't think he's the worst LF the BBWAA selected, so this probably makes much more sense. CF is where we see the biggest changes. DiMaggio, for example, moves ahead of Duke Snider and Andre Dawson, instead of being only above Puckett (who remains the least qualified CF in the Hall). Interestingly, Mantle moves from 4th to 1st, followed by Mays, Cobb, and Speaker. Finally, the only player within 30% of Babe Ruth at any position is Ted Williams (which I think is more or less how people see things in baseball - at least the writers). Other than a big jump by Harry Heilmann, it's pretty much the same list, although I must say I'm a little surprised Mel Ott leapfrogged Hank Aaron. Anyway, here's the complete list, by position. If you don't like long, boring lists of names and arbitrary numbers, go ahead and skip it. Here it is:
C:
Yogi Berra, 38.94; Mickey Cochrane, 38.90; Carlton Fisk, 38.57; Gabby Hartnett, 38.55; Bill Dickey, 37.34; Johnny Bench, 37.14; Roy Campanella, 32.58; Gary Carter, 32.10
1B:
Lou Gehrig, 76.19; Jimmie Foxx, 72.39; Hank Greenberg, 55.53; Harmon Killebrew, 53.89; Willie McCovey, 51.84; Eddie Murray, 41.95; Tony Perez, 37.62; Bill Terry, 34.78; George Sisler, 31.69
2B:
Rogers Hornsby, 59.44; Joe Morgan, 49.41; Eddie Collins, 48.91; Charlie Gehringer, 45.79; Nap Lajoie, 38.29; Roberto Alomar, 36.51; Jackie Robinson, 35.81; Frankie Frisch, 34.25; Ryne Sandberg, 32.63; Rod Carew, 32.62
3B:
Mike Schmidt, 55.79; Eddie Mathews, 47.71; George Brett, 41.42; Wade Boggs, 34.87; Pie Traynor, 30.65; Brooks Robinson, 27.60
SS:
Honus Wagner, 46.17; Joe Cronin, 43.19; Ernie Banks, 38.15; Cal Ripken, 35.31; Luke Appling, 32.95; Robin Yount, 32.76; Lou Boudreau, 27.55; Ozzie Smith, 24.60; Rabbit Maranville, 22.01; Luis Aparicio, 21.96
LF:
Ted Williams, 86.23; Rickey Henderson, 59.78; Stan Musial, 57.81; Willie Stargell, 47.57; Carl Yastrzemski, 45.92; Al Simmons, 45.73; Ralph Kiner, 44.40; Billy Williams, 39.22; Jim Rice, 36.50; Joe Medwick, 35.29; Lou Brock, 31.66
CF:
Mickey Mantle, 63.57; Willie Mays, 59.94; Ty Cobb, 59.57; Tris Speaker, 51.78; Joe DiMaggio, 49.48; Duke Snider, 48.94; Andre Dawson, 37.49; Kirby Puckett, 28.30
RF:
Babe Ruth, 105.29; Mel Ott, 61.99; Hank Aaron, 57.70; Frank Robinson, 57.38; Reggie Jackson, 48.29; Harry Heilmann, 44.68; Al Kaline, 44.06; Dave Winfield, 43.13; Paul Waner, 39.54; Tony Gwynn, 33.95; Roberto Clemente, 32.04; Willie Keeler, 31.80
DH:
Paul Molitor, 37.92
Now doesn't that all look better? I think so. It really "feels" like how the BBWAA voters think about players. Sure, there are some wild inconsistencies, but most of those can be explained away. And, as our series continues, you'll see how the Veterans' Committee stacks up (let's just say this: the writers don't miss too many, even by their own "unusual" standards - there's a reason the Vets committee has a bad reputation). And we'll look in the 4th part at the some players who are favorites for people to talk about as possible Hall of Famers. Finally, in Part V, assuming I keep this up another few weeks, we'll look at some current players and not-yet-eligibles who have already met the standards for the Baseball Hall of Fame.
For example, I assumed the lowest scoring catcher would be Roy Campanella. He was. But I was surprised to see that Mickey Cochrane scored as low as he did. However, with the new system, the catcher who scores lowest is actually not Campanella, but rather Gary Carter. I suspect that, if you ask most baseball writers who they would rather have in the Hall, Carter or Campy, they would pick Campy. The system now reflects that. The old system left Hank Greenberg out in the cold. The new version ranks him behind only Lou Gehrig and Jimmie Foxx, in spite of his short career. The new system ranks Jackie Robinson near the middle of the 2B crowd, rather than at the end. The old system didn't like Wade Boggs - the new one ranks him above Brooks Robinson. Keeping in mind that my system (obviously) only ranks players as hitters, this makes total sense. At SS, Rabbit Maranville and Ozzie Smith move behind Lou Boudreau. In LF, Ted Williams comes in first (as it should be), while Ralph Kiner gets an unexpected bump. I don't think he's the worst LF the BBWAA selected, so this probably makes much more sense. CF is where we see the biggest changes. DiMaggio, for example, moves ahead of Duke Snider and Andre Dawson, instead of being only above Puckett (who remains the least qualified CF in the Hall). Interestingly, Mantle moves from 4th to 1st, followed by Mays, Cobb, and Speaker. Finally, the only player within 30% of Babe Ruth at any position is Ted Williams (which I think is more or less how people see things in baseball - at least the writers). Other than a big jump by Harry Heilmann, it's pretty much the same list, although I must say I'm a little surprised Mel Ott leapfrogged Hank Aaron. Anyway, here's the complete list, by position. If you don't like long, boring lists of names and arbitrary numbers, go ahead and skip it. Here it is:
C:
Yogi Berra, 38.94; Mickey Cochrane, 38.90; Carlton Fisk, 38.57; Gabby Hartnett, 38.55; Bill Dickey, 37.34; Johnny Bench, 37.14; Roy Campanella, 32.58; Gary Carter, 32.10
1B:
Lou Gehrig, 76.19; Jimmie Foxx, 72.39; Hank Greenberg, 55.53; Harmon Killebrew, 53.89; Willie McCovey, 51.84; Eddie Murray, 41.95; Tony Perez, 37.62; Bill Terry, 34.78; George Sisler, 31.69
2B:
Rogers Hornsby, 59.44; Joe Morgan, 49.41; Eddie Collins, 48.91; Charlie Gehringer, 45.79; Nap Lajoie, 38.29; Roberto Alomar, 36.51; Jackie Robinson, 35.81; Frankie Frisch, 34.25; Ryne Sandberg, 32.63; Rod Carew, 32.62
3B:
Mike Schmidt, 55.79; Eddie Mathews, 47.71; George Brett, 41.42; Wade Boggs, 34.87; Pie Traynor, 30.65; Brooks Robinson, 27.60
SS:
Honus Wagner, 46.17; Joe Cronin, 43.19; Ernie Banks, 38.15; Cal Ripken, 35.31; Luke Appling, 32.95; Robin Yount, 32.76; Lou Boudreau, 27.55; Ozzie Smith, 24.60; Rabbit Maranville, 22.01; Luis Aparicio, 21.96
LF:
Ted Williams, 86.23; Rickey Henderson, 59.78; Stan Musial, 57.81; Willie Stargell, 47.57; Carl Yastrzemski, 45.92; Al Simmons, 45.73; Ralph Kiner, 44.40; Billy Williams, 39.22; Jim Rice, 36.50; Joe Medwick, 35.29; Lou Brock, 31.66
CF:
Mickey Mantle, 63.57; Willie Mays, 59.94; Ty Cobb, 59.57; Tris Speaker, 51.78; Joe DiMaggio, 49.48; Duke Snider, 48.94; Andre Dawson, 37.49; Kirby Puckett, 28.30
RF:
Babe Ruth, 105.29; Mel Ott, 61.99; Hank Aaron, 57.70; Frank Robinson, 57.38; Reggie Jackson, 48.29; Harry Heilmann, 44.68; Al Kaline, 44.06; Dave Winfield, 43.13; Paul Waner, 39.54; Tony Gwynn, 33.95; Roberto Clemente, 32.04; Willie Keeler, 31.80
DH:
Paul Molitor, 37.92
Now doesn't that all look better? I think so. It really "feels" like how the BBWAA voters think about players. Sure, there are some wild inconsistencies, but most of those can be explained away. And, as our series continues, you'll see how the Veterans' Committee stacks up (let's just say this: the writers don't miss too many, even by their own "unusual" standards - there's a reason the Vets committee has a bad reputation). And we'll look in the 4th part at the some players who are favorites for people to talk about as possible Hall of Famers. Finally, in Part V, assuming I keep this up another few weeks, we'll look at some current players and not-yet-eligibles who have already met the standards for the Baseball Hall of Fame.
Monday, October 31, 2011
BBWAA Hall of Fame Standards for Hitters, Part I
What are the standards for the Hall of Fame? A few days ago, I posted about MVP votes, and how they may be determined. What if we use a similar theory to see how people get voted into the Hall of Fame?
What it looks to me is like there actually are standards, based on the simple stuff we can base off of Batting Average, Secondary Average, and (R+RBI)/AB. If we take those and multiply them by an adjusted number of “seasons,” [this is an easy calculation: we take the number of PA/G a player has in his career. We multiply that by 158, which is what we're considering a full season, since it's halfway between 154 and 162. We'll call that number “x.” Then we take PA/x, and that will tell us how many “seasons” the player played. However, be less than the actual number for most players. So we average that with the actual number of seasons the player played. That should help those players with cups of coffee to even things out.] we come up with a small number. Each position appears to have its own standard for this number. These, by the way, are not minimums, but rather the number that, if a player reaches it, should guarantee enshrinement. For the record, I'm using players elected by the BBWAA, in Run-Offs (Red Ruffing, who's a pitcher, so not him actually, Luke Appling, and Charlie Gehringer) and Special Elections (Roberto Clemente and Lou Gehrig). Here they are, along with the BBWAA players who are in:
C: 4.0
In:
Carlton Fisk, 5.9; Yogi Berra, 5.0; Gabby Hartnett, 5.0; Johnny Bench, 4.7; Gary Carter, 4.7; Bill Dickey, 4.5.
Out:
Mickey Cochrane, 3.8 – Close, but not quite qualified. Of course, Of course, he played on 5 pennant-winners, 3 Series-winners, and won two MVPS, so there's really no way he's going to get left out.
Roy Campanella, 2.9 – I think it's fair to say that Campy got a little benefit because of his Negro League career and the car accident limiting his career on both ends.
1B: 6.0
In:
Jimmie Foxx, 7.2; Lou Gehrig, 6.8; Harmon Killebrew, 6.6; Willie McCovey, 6.6; Eddie Murray, 6.1.
Out:
*Tony Perez, 5.8 – Perez was one of the cogs in the Big Red Machine. Seeing as the Hall couldn't ever elect Pete Rose, I always kind of thought of Perez as a sort of “make-up” pick. And he's really close to the threshold.
Hank Greenberg, 4.4 – Definitley getting (deserved) credit for missing more time for war than any player in history other than Ted Williams. Additionally, Greenberg's seasons in which he did play were huge. So he gets the benefit of the doubt.
George Sisler, 4.1 – Overrated.
Bill Terry, 3.9 – Ditto. Both were high-average, low-power guys in high-offense eras. Don't really belong, though.
2B: 4.5
In:
Eddie Collins, 7.0; Rogers Hornsby, 6.9; Joe Morgan, 6.5; Charlie Gehringer, 5.6; Nap Lajoie, 5.5; Frankie Frisch, 4.9; Rod Carew, 4.8; Roberto Alomar, 4.8.
Out:
*Ryne Sandberg, 4.3 – Could just as easily be in. Very close to the threshold, won an MVP, and could have won another.
Jackie Robinson, 3.2 – Yup. He was going in even if he hadn't been a great player. But he was – and probably better than many of the players ahead of him, but his career was limited on the front end by segregation.
3B: 4.5
In:
Mike Schmidt, 6.1; George Brett, 5.9; Eddie Mathews, 5.5; Brooks Robinson, 5.0; Wade Boggs, 4.9.
Out:
Pie Traynor, 4.1 – There are no other third baseman before Traynor that even rank this highly, so it's really not surprising that he's up here. Definitely understandable, although he's still very much a high-batting-average guy.
SS: 4.0
In:
Honus Wagner, 6.3; Cal Ripken, 5.6; Joe Cronin, 5.4; Ernie Banks, 5.3; Robin Yount, 5.2; Luke Appling, 5.0; Rabbit Maranville, 4.4; Ozzie Smith, 4.3, Luis Aparicio, 4.0 (3.96).
Out:
Aparicio was on the line once rounded, but I'd say he gets in. And this is my made-up qualification.
Lou Boudreau, 3.53 – Good player, won an MVP, led the Indians to a World Series as a player-manager. Ended DiMaggio's hitting streak (at least, he fielded the ball in DiMaggio's last AB of what would have been game #57). Not shocking he got in, but it wouldn't have been surprising if he'd been left out.
LF: 5.0?
In:
Rickey Henderson, 7.9; Ted Williams, 7.7; Stan Musial, 7.4; Carl Yastrzemski, 6.9; Willie Stargell, 6.0; Al Simmons, 5.7; Billy Williams, 5.2.
Out:
*Lou Brock, 4.9 – Add in the success of his teams, the 3000 hits, and the all-time leadership in steals at the time of his election, and his close-but-no-cigar becomes a no-brainer.
*Jim Rice, 4.5 – Puzzling by any measure. Big 1978, but the Sox came up short. Not really clear on how he got in, though he was undoubtedly a great player. He's just not on the level as the others.
*Joe Medwick, 4.5 – Pretty much the same story for Medwick. One big season (Triple Crown in 1937). Good player, just not on the level of the others, in spite of playing (unlike Rice) in a big-hitting era.
Ralph Kiner, 3.7 – It was a mystery then. One-dimensional slugger. People apparently felt they couldn't leave him out because of the 8 HR titles, but I wouldn't have been shocked if they had.
CF: 4.5 (I think, though it's hard to say, because the numbers are all much higher. Could actually be more like 5.0)
In:
Ty Cobb, 7.7; Willie Mays, 7.5; Tris Speaker, 6.8; Mickey Mantle, 6.6; Duke Snider, 5.5; Andre Dawson, 5.5; Joe DiMaggio, 4.5.
Out:
Kirby Puckett, 3.4 – Puckett gets a lot of credit for the unfortunate circumstances of the end of his playing days. Actually DiMaggio may be below this threshold, as well, but he was going to get in regardless. In fact, the idea of a 5.0 threshold may make more sense, because it would make the entire outfield consistent, and it's probable that voters see all outfielders as equal, in spite of CF being much harder than the other two positions.
RF: 5.0
In:
Babe Ruth, ; Hank Aaron, ; Mel Ott, ; Frank Robinson, ; Reggie Jackson, ; Dave Winfield, ; Al Kaline, ; Paul Waner, ; Harry Heilmann, ; Tony Gwynn, .
Out:
*Roberto Clemente, 4.7 – He was getting in regardless. 3000 hits, and his tragic death, plus an MVP and a World Championship (1960).
*Willie Keeler, 4.6 – Yeah, it was the early days. It's not really shocking that he got in.
DH: 5.5
In:
Paul Molitor, 5.6.
The only one in is Molitor, and he “belongs,” because the standard is based on him.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the Hall was a little less selective than this. It might look more like this:
C/2B/SS: 4.0
1B/3B/OF: 4.5
DH: 5.0? 5.5?
All stuff to think about. And this would retroactively include most of the people in the “out” category, as well. They're marked with an * above.
What it looks to me is like there actually are standards, based on the simple stuff we can base off of Batting Average, Secondary Average, and (R+RBI)/AB. If we take those and multiply them by an adjusted number of “seasons,” [this is an easy calculation: we take the number of PA/G a player has in his career. We multiply that by 158, which is what we're considering a full season, since it's halfway between 154 and 162. We'll call that number “x.” Then we take PA/x, and that will tell us how many “seasons” the player played. However, be less than the actual number for most players. So we average that with the actual number of seasons the player played. That should help those players with cups of coffee to even things out.] we come up with a small number. Each position appears to have its own standard for this number. These, by the way, are not minimums, but rather the number that, if a player reaches it, should guarantee enshrinement. For the record, I'm using players elected by the BBWAA, in Run-Offs (Red Ruffing, who's a pitcher, so not him actually, Luke Appling, and Charlie Gehringer) and Special Elections (Roberto Clemente and Lou Gehrig). Here they are, along with the BBWAA players who are in:
C: 4.0
In:
Carlton Fisk, 5.9; Yogi Berra, 5.0; Gabby Hartnett, 5.0; Johnny Bench, 4.7; Gary Carter, 4.7; Bill Dickey, 4.5.
Out:
Mickey Cochrane, 3.8 – Close, but not quite qualified. Of course, Of course, he played on 5 pennant-winners, 3 Series-winners, and won two MVPS, so there's really no way he's going to get left out.
Roy Campanella, 2.9 – I think it's fair to say that Campy got a little benefit because of his Negro League career and the car accident limiting his career on both ends.
1B: 6.0
In:
Jimmie Foxx, 7.2; Lou Gehrig, 6.8; Harmon Killebrew, 6.6; Willie McCovey, 6.6; Eddie Murray, 6.1.
Out:
*Tony Perez, 5.8 – Perez was one of the cogs in the Big Red Machine. Seeing as the Hall couldn't ever elect Pete Rose, I always kind of thought of Perez as a sort of “make-up” pick. And he's really close to the threshold.
Hank Greenberg, 4.4 – Definitley getting (deserved) credit for missing more time for war than any player in history other than Ted Williams. Additionally, Greenberg's seasons in which he did play were huge. So he gets the benefit of the doubt.
George Sisler, 4.1 – Overrated.
Bill Terry, 3.9 – Ditto. Both were high-average, low-power guys in high-offense eras. Don't really belong, though.
2B: 4.5
In:
Eddie Collins, 7.0; Rogers Hornsby, 6.9; Joe Morgan, 6.5; Charlie Gehringer, 5.6; Nap Lajoie, 5.5; Frankie Frisch, 4.9; Rod Carew, 4.8; Roberto Alomar, 4.8.
Out:
*Ryne Sandberg, 4.3 – Could just as easily be in. Very close to the threshold, won an MVP, and could have won another.
Jackie Robinson, 3.2 – Yup. He was going in even if he hadn't been a great player. But he was – and probably better than many of the players ahead of him, but his career was limited on the front end by segregation.
3B: 4.5
In:
Mike Schmidt, 6.1; George Brett, 5.9; Eddie Mathews, 5.5; Brooks Robinson, 5.0; Wade Boggs, 4.9.
Out:
Pie Traynor, 4.1 – There are no other third baseman before Traynor that even rank this highly, so it's really not surprising that he's up here. Definitely understandable, although he's still very much a high-batting-average guy.
SS: 4.0
In:
Honus Wagner, 6.3; Cal Ripken, 5.6; Joe Cronin, 5.4; Ernie Banks, 5.3; Robin Yount, 5.2; Luke Appling, 5.0; Rabbit Maranville, 4.4; Ozzie Smith, 4.3, Luis Aparicio, 4.0 (3.96).
Out:
Aparicio was on the line once rounded, but I'd say he gets in. And this is my made-up qualification.
Lou Boudreau, 3.53 – Good player, won an MVP, led the Indians to a World Series as a player-manager. Ended DiMaggio's hitting streak (at least, he fielded the ball in DiMaggio's last AB of what would have been game #57). Not shocking he got in, but it wouldn't have been surprising if he'd been left out.
LF: 5.0?
In:
Rickey Henderson, 7.9; Ted Williams, 7.7; Stan Musial, 7.4; Carl Yastrzemski, 6.9; Willie Stargell, 6.0; Al Simmons, 5.7; Billy Williams, 5.2.
Out:
*Lou Brock, 4.9 – Add in the success of his teams, the 3000 hits, and the all-time leadership in steals at the time of his election, and his close-but-no-cigar becomes a no-brainer.
*Jim Rice, 4.5 – Puzzling by any measure. Big 1978, but the Sox came up short. Not really clear on how he got in, though he was undoubtedly a great player. He's just not on the level as the others.
*Joe Medwick, 4.5 – Pretty much the same story for Medwick. One big season (Triple Crown in 1937). Good player, just not on the level of the others, in spite of playing (unlike Rice) in a big-hitting era.
Ralph Kiner, 3.7 – It was a mystery then. One-dimensional slugger. People apparently felt they couldn't leave him out because of the 8 HR titles, but I wouldn't have been shocked if they had.
CF: 4.5 (I think, though it's hard to say, because the numbers are all much higher. Could actually be more like 5.0)
In:
Ty Cobb, 7.7; Willie Mays, 7.5; Tris Speaker, 6.8; Mickey Mantle, 6.6; Duke Snider, 5.5; Andre Dawson, 5.5; Joe DiMaggio, 4.5.
Out:
Kirby Puckett, 3.4 – Puckett gets a lot of credit for the unfortunate circumstances of the end of his playing days. Actually DiMaggio may be below this threshold, as well, but he was going to get in regardless. In fact, the idea of a 5.0 threshold may make more sense, because it would make the entire outfield consistent, and it's probable that voters see all outfielders as equal, in spite of CF being much harder than the other two positions.
RF: 5.0
In:
Babe Ruth, ; Hank Aaron, ; Mel Ott, ; Frank Robinson, ; Reggie Jackson, ; Dave Winfield, ; Al Kaline, ; Paul Waner, ; Harry Heilmann, ; Tony Gwynn, .
Out:
*Roberto Clemente, 4.7 – He was getting in regardless. 3000 hits, and his tragic death, plus an MVP and a World Championship (1960).
*Willie Keeler, 4.6 – Yeah, it was the early days. It's not really shocking that he got in.
DH: 5.5
In:
Paul Molitor, 5.6.
The only one in is Molitor, and he “belongs,” because the standard is based on him.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the Hall was a little less selective than this. It might look more like this:
C/2B/SS: 4.0
1B/3B/OF: 4.5
DH: 5.0? 5.5?
All stuff to think about. And this would retroactively include most of the people in the “out” category, as well. They're marked with an * above.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
In Response to a Post at The Platoon Advantage
Specifically, this post.
I love the blog (read every single post), and I love the idea. I just disagree about the results.
My personal bias would be to not pick dynasties on their last legs. I'd rather go with some one-and-dones. So I have to disagree about the ranking of the '06 Cards. As they pointed out, that was basically the same team as the '04 and '05 Cards, and no one would put either of those teams on the list, had they won. I actually think it's a pretty similar story for the 2000 Yankees. Obviously, that was a worse team than the 1998 and 1999 versions, but they were still a very, very solid team. I guess I'd go with:
8. 1960 Pittsburgh Pirates. How does this team not get mentioned on lists like this more often? I've NEVER heard anyone make the claim that this wasn't that good of a team, but I have a couple of theories as to why. First, Dick Groat had a nice year, and won himself an MVP. Second, the Mazeroski home run is (rightfully) famous, and how could a famous home run have come from a bad team? (#kidding) Third, they beat a ridiculously good Yankee team that outplayed them over the course of a seven-game series, and people love that sort of well-they-got-outplayed-but-they-won-anyway-because-they're-scrappy-and-have-heart-kind-of-like-a-whole-team-of-David-Ecksteins garbage. But they were a 4th-place team in 1959, a 6th-place team in 1961, with literally the exact same starting lineup, and two of the top four pitchers were in common all three of the years (plus Vern Law in '59 and '60, and Vinegar Bend Mizell in '60 and '61 - and no, I didn't make up that name). It was a not-great team that took advantage of an NL that was a bit weak. Just not a great team.
7. 1906 Chicago White Sox. Is it too mean to pick on the "Hitless Wonders?" I don't think so, because the pitching wasn't even that good. Not a bad team, but they had no staying power, and that was in the early days of the AL when the league was weak enough that pretty much any team should have been able to dominate for 5-6 years. Obviously, I could have picked on any of the teams from that era, but this one seemed like the obvious choice, so I went with it.
6. 2003 Florida Marlins. Not nearly the same as the 1997 Marlins, which were a dice-roll on talent. This was a game of roulette where before the season, the Marlins called out, "Let it ride on 00 Green!" and it somehow came up. Yeah, there were some great players, but they didn't even know what they had in Miguel Cabrera, and the pitching was just lights-out, even though those same players mostly flamed out within a couple years. Total luck of the draw, and the worst World Series winner I remember watching.
5. 1988 Los Angeles Dodgers. The good stuff first: Kirk Gibson was the MVP, Orel Hershiser won the Cy Young and had the 59 scoreless innings. The bad: no one else on the team had an rWAR above 2.9 (!!!!!!!!!), and Gibson didn't even make the All-Star team (though he's probably the best player to never be an All-Star). Had Pedro Guerrero not been inexplicably traded midseason (at least, I can't explain it, but I was not quite yet 2 years old at the time, so if someone knows the scoop, give it to me), they would have had one other championship-caliber hitter.
4. 1914 Boston Braves. Yup, Miracle teams are great stories. But do you know why it's a great story when a Miracle team wins, like these Miracle Braves? It's a Miracle because they're not that good of a team. When Johnny Evers and something named Joe Connolly (he of 4 Major League seasons, though they were pretty good ones) are your best hitters, there's a problem.
3. 1990 Cincinnati Reds. Seriously - how did you forget these guys? Larkin wasn't that good a hitter yet, O'Neill and Davis both had off-years, the pitching staff was somehow led by Jose Rijo, and it wasn't even his best season. Yikes.
2. 1987 Minnesota Twins. My wife was born the day they won game 7 (and she's from Minnesota, and a die-hard Twins fan). We think very fondly of this team, but man alive - they weren't really very good.
1. Quick - name ONE player on the 1944 St. Louis Browns. Did you get Vern Stephens, aka the only player on the team with an rWAR over 4.6, and only non-pitcher over 2.2? As you said, it's a little unfair to attack wartime baseball. But seriously, how do you not put these guys at the top? Sure, their winning percentage was .577, which is better than many teams, but two years earlier (before all the good players left) or one year later (when they came back) this team wouldn't have finished 7th, much less won the pennant. At least the 1945 Tigers, mentioned on the other list, had great pitching, and Rudy York, whom Bill (the poster at The Platoon Advantage) drastically underestimates as a player.
Fun exercise. I wanted to pick the 1985 Royals, but their pitching was just too, too good. Also, I really wanted to include the 1940 Reds, but at least they had Ernie Lombardi, Frank McCormick, and Bucky Walters, who each had a pretty good run in the late-'30s-early-40s era. Hope you've enjoyed this. What do you think?
baseball-reference.com was indispensable in the writing of this post.
I love the blog (read every single post), and I love the idea. I just disagree about the results.
My personal bias would be to not pick dynasties on their last legs. I'd rather go with some one-and-dones. So I have to disagree about the ranking of the '06 Cards. As they pointed out, that was basically the same team as the '04 and '05 Cards, and no one would put either of those teams on the list, had they won. I actually think it's a pretty similar story for the 2000 Yankees. Obviously, that was a worse team than the 1998 and 1999 versions, but they were still a very, very solid team. I guess I'd go with:
8. 1960 Pittsburgh Pirates. How does this team not get mentioned on lists like this more often? I've NEVER heard anyone make the claim that this wasn't that good of a team, but I have a couple of theories as to why. First, Dick Groat had a nice year, and won himself an MVP. Second, the Mazeroski home run is (rightfully) famous, and how could a famous home run have come from a bad team? (#kidding) Third, they beat a ridiculously good Yankee team that outplayed them over the course of a seven-game series, and people love that sort of well-they-got-outplayed-but-they-won-anyway-because-they're-scrappy-and-have-heart-kind-of-like-a-whole-team-of-David-Ecksteins garbage. But they were a 4th-place team in 1959, a 6th-place team in 1961, with literally the exact same starting lineup, and two of the top four pitchers were in common all three of the years (plus Vern Law in '59 and '60, and Vinegar Bend Mizell in '60 and '61 - and no, I didn't make up that name). It was a not-great team that took advantage of an NL that was a bit weak. Just not a great team.
7. 1906 Chicago White Sox. Is it too mean to pick on the "Hitless Wonders?" I don't think so, because the pitching wasn't even that good. Not a bad team, but they had no staying power, and that was in the early days of the AL when the league was weak enough that pretty much any team should have been able to dominate for 5-6 years. Obviously, I could have picked on any of the teams from that era, but this one seemed like the obvious choice, so I went with it.
6. 2003 Florida Marlins. Not nearly the same as the 1997 Marlins, which were a dice-roll on talent. This was a game of roulette where before the season, the Marlins called out, "Let it ride on 00 Green!" and it somehow came up. Yeah, there were some great players, but they didn't even know what they had in Miguel Cabrera, and the pitching was just lights-out, even though those same players mostly flamed out within a couple years. Total luck of the draw, and the worst World Series winner I remember watching.
5. 1988 Los Angeles Dodgers. The good stuff first: Kirk Gibson was the MVP, Orel Hershiser won the Cy Young and had the 59 scoreless innings. The bad: no one else on the team had an rWAR above 2.9 (!!!!!!!!!), and Gibson didn't even make the All-Star team (though he's probably the best player to never be an All-Star). Had Pedro Guerrero not been inexplicably traded midseason (at least, I can't explain it, but I was not quite yet 2 years old at the time, so if someone knows the scoop, give it to me), they would have had one other championship-caliber hitter.
4. 1914 Boston Braves. Yup, Miracle teams are great stories. But do you know why it's a great story when a Miracle team wins, like these Miracle Braves? It's a Miracle because they're not that good of a team. When Johnny Evers and something named Joe Connolly (he of 4 Major League seasons, though they were pretty good ones) are your best hitters, there's a problem.
3. 1990 Cincinnati Reds. Seriously - how did you forget these guys? Larkin wasn't that good a hitter yet, O'Neill and Davis both had off-years, the pitching staff was somehow led by Jose Rijo, and it wasn't even his best season. Yikes.
2. 1987 Minnesota Twins. My wife was born the day they won game 7 (and she's from Minnesota, and a die-hard Twins fan). We think very fondly of this team, but man alive - they weren't really very good.
1. Quick - name ONE player on the 1944 St. Louis Browns. Did you get Vern Stephens, aka the only player on the team with an rWAR over 4.6, and only non-pitcher over 2.2? As you said, it's a little unfair to attack wartime baseball. But seriously, how do you not put these guys at the top? Sure, their winning percentage was .577, which is better than many teams, but two years earlier (before all the good players left) or one year later (when they came back) this team wouldn't have finished 7th, much less won the pennant. At least the 1945 Tigers, mentioned on the other list, had great pitching, and Rudy York, whom Bill (the poster at The Platoon Advantage) drastically underestimates as a player.
Fun exercise. I wanted to pick the 1985 Royals, but their pitching was just too, too good. Also, I really wanted to include the 1940 Reds, but at least they had Ernie Lombardi, Frank McCormick, and Bucky Walters, who each had a pretty good run in the late-'30s-early-40s era. Hope you've enjoyed this. What do you think?
baseball-reference.com was indispensable in the writing of this post.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
2011 IBAs
The Internet Baseball Awards have existed since 1991, and are the internet's longest running baseball awards. Anyone with a Baseball Prospectus subscription, even at the lowly "basic" (i.e. "free") level can have a vote. And so, for the second year in a row, I cast my vote. Here's my ballot. I hope you like it:
AL Manager of the Year
1. Joe Maddon, TBR
2. Mike Scioscia, LAA
3. Manny Acta, CLE
These three managers were, more than any others, I think, part of teams that outperformed expectations. For the Rays's refusal to quit in spite of overwhelming odds, I give Maddon the nod. Scioscia and Acta would also be great choices, though. Scioscia, because of past performance, I think, has been largely overlooked, but the Angels were MUCH better than anyone expected this year.
NL Manager of the Year
1. Kirk Gibson, ARI
2. Ron Roenicke, MIL
3. Don Mattingly, LAD
Gibson led his team to the most surprising finish. Roenicke took what was a sub-.500 team last year, added some new players, created a good clubhouse environment, and led the team to the 2nd-best record in the NL. Mattingly's job was probably the hardest of anyone in baseball, and even after a miserable first half, he helped the Dodgers to an above-.500 record.
AL Rookie of the Year
1. Jeremy Hellickson, TBR
2. Michael Pineda, SEA
3. Dustin Ackley, SEA
Hellickson had a great year for a rookie. There's just not much else to say. Pineda was a nice surprise, and Ackley was the lone offensive bright spot on a TERRIBLE offense.
NL Rookie of the Year
1. Josh Collmenter, ARI
2. Craig Kimbrel, ATL
3. Wilson Ramos, WAS
Ramos was a great pickup for Washington in the Matt Capps trade, but the two pitchers had better year. Collmenter was impressive, but my vote would have gone to Kimbrel if not for his fading down the stretch – he blew three leads (and two saves) in his last eight appearances. And while that was only a small part of the reason Atlanta missed the postseason and I can't blame him for that, it can keep him from getting my RotY vote.
AL Cy Young
1. Justin Verlander, DET
2. CC Sabathia, NYY
3. Jered Weaver, LAA
4. CJ Wilson, TEX
5. Dan Haren, LAA
Verlander had a great year. I wanted to vote for Sabathia, just to be different, and because I really liked his year. But the gap between Verlander and Sabathia is big enough that it has to be Justin. Weaver was a close third, but definitely below the first group. Wilson and Haren were great, and I also considered James Shields.
NL Cy Young
1. Roy Halladay, PHI
2. Cliff Lee, PHI
3. Clayton Kershaw, LAD
4. Cole Hamels, PHI
5. Ian Kennedy, ARI
This was a tough one. It's a really narrow margin from 1-3, and no order is really wrong, per say. I like how Halladay and Lee come out in some of the DIPS methods, plus they have a hitter's park to deal with. The next three were close, as well, with Madison Bumgarner just missing the list. I also considered giving Greinke a nod because his unusual HR rate making his overall numbers worse.
AL MVP
1. Jose Bautista, TOR
2. Miguel Cabrera, DET
3. Jacoby Ellsbury, BOS
4. Justin Verlander, DET
5. CC Sabathia, NYY
6. Mike Napoli, TEX
7. Curtis Granderson, NYY
8. Dustin Pedroia, BOS
9. Adrian Gonzalez, BOS
10. Alex Gordon, KCR
Let me first say that I wanted to put Robinson Cano on this list, but he just missed, and I feel bad about that, because he had a great year. Napoli is probably a little higher than he would be on most people's lists, but he basically led the AL (or was second to Bautista) in every meaningful rate stat. The fact that he only played 113 games because he had one small injury and plays catcher is not something I'm going to hold against him too terribly much. In a year when Josh Hamilton and Nelson Cruz underperformed, Napoli could be counted on to come through time and again. As for Bautista at the top, well, that's just how I feel. I think if you put him on the Red Sox, they finish with the best record in baseball, instead of missing the playoffs completely. I can't really see a strong argument for any other player except Verlander, who's a bit overrated this year (and is pretty much neck-and-neck with Sabathia, in my book), Cabrera, who doesn't seem to get much national love because of the Verlander hype, or Ellsbury, who just flat-out wasn't as good. Basically, the top-5 are all good choices. But Bautista's my guy. And one last thing: it was really fun to put a Royal on here and be totally serious about it. Gordon finally had the breakout season we've all been waiting for him to have.
NL MVP
1. Matt Kemp, LAD
2. Ryan Braun, MIL
3. Joey Votto, CIN
4. Jose Reyes, NYM
5. Roy Halladay, PHI
6. Cliff Lee, PHI
7. Clayton Kershaw, LAD
8. Justin Upton, ARI
9. Prince Fielder, MIL
10. Troy Tulowitzki, COL
Definitely a hard one for me. I wish I could vote for Braun. I really do. He was outstanding. He's really picked up his defensive game, and as a Brewers fan, I know how huge he was for the team. He's been my favorite player on the team ever since he came up, and I'd love to give him my vote. But even as a homer, I can't ignore how awesome Matt Kemp was. By the traditional measures, he was the best, even playing in a pitcher's park. In the advanced metrics, he laps the field. So it has to be Kemp. The most bizarre thing about this is excluding the name “Albert Pujols.” I thought about including him, just for old times' sakes, but he didn't have a noticeably better year than teammates Lance Berkman or Matt Holliday, nor for that matter some guys like Pablo Sandoval, Brandon Phillips, Shane Victorino, or Andrew McCutchen, and I wasn't going to vote for any of them, so he gets left off. As for the other players, it's really too close to call. They could have gone in pretty much any order, although Reyes would have definitely been higher had it not been for the injury. Votto had an awesome year, and is completely overlooked. Fielder's a little overrated because of his awesome clutchiness this season, but he had another great campaign. Overall, just a really strong crop in the NL, and really tough choices. It'd probably be different if I did it again tomorrow, especially 3-10.
Also, since there's nowhere else to put this, I want to give myself credit for the best idea of the year, because I had it before the Brewers did. The day they signed Mark Kotsay, I said to my father on the phone, “Why would they sign an old guy who can't run and doesn't hit well when Nyjer Morgan is still available? I know he has a reputation as a clubhouse cancer, but he's fast and would make a good defensive replacement and pinch runner, if nothing else. And it would give us a lefthanded bat, just like Kotsay.” Apparently, Brewers GM Doug Melvin heard that conversation or something, signed Morgan, and the rest is history, Tony Plush and all.
AL Manager of the Year
1. Joe Maddon, TBR
2. Mike Scioscia, LAA
3. Manny Acta, CLE
These three managers were, more than any others, I think, part of teams that outperformed expectations. For the Rays's refusal to quit in spite of overwhelming odds, I give Maddon the nod. Scioscia and Acta would also be great choices, though. Scioscia, because of past performance, I think, has been largely overlooked, but the Angels were MUCH better than anyone expected this year.
NL Manager of the Year
1. Kirk Gibson, ARI
2. Ron Roenicke, MIL
3. Don Mattingly, LAD
Gibson led his team to the most surprising finish. Roenicke took what was a sub-.500 team last year, added some new players, created a good clubhouse environment, and led the team to the 2nd-best record in the NL. Mattingly's job was probably the hardest of anyone in baseball, and even after a miserable first half, he helped the Dodgers to an above-.500 record.
AL Rookie of the Year
1. Jeremy Hellickson, TBR
2. Michael Pineda, SEA
3. Dustin Ackley, SEA
Hellickson had a great year for a rookie. There's just not much else to say. Pineda was a nice surprise, and Ackley was the lone offensive bright spot on a TERRIBLE offense.
NL Rookie of the Year
1. Josh Collmenter, ARI
2. Craig Kimbrel, ATL
3. Wilson Ramos, WAS
Ramos was a great pickup for Washington in the Matt Capps trade, but the two pitchers had better year. Collmenter was impressive, but my vote would have gone to Kimbrel if not for his fading down the stretch – he blew three leads (and two saves) in his last eight appearances. And while that was only a small part of the reason Atlanta missed the postseason and I can't blame him for that, it can keep him from getting my RotY vote.
AL Cy Young
1. Justin Verlander, DET
2. CC Sabathia, NYY
3. Jered Weaver, LAA
4. CJ Wilson, TEX
5. Dan Haren, LAA
Verlander had a great year. I wanted to vote for Sabathia, just to be different, and because I really liked his year. But the gap between Verlander and Sabathia is big enough that it has to be Justin. Weaver was a close third, but definitely below the first group. Wilson and Haren were great, and I also considered James Shields.
NL Cy Young
1. Roy Halladay, PHI
2. Cliff Lee, PHI
3. Clayton Kershaw, LAD
4. Cole Hamels, PHI
5. Ian Kennedy, ARI
This was a tough one. It's a really narrow margin from 1-3, and no order is really wrong, per say. I like how Halladay and Lee come out in some of the DIPS methods, plus they have a hitter's park to deal with. The next three were close, as well, with Madison Bumgarner just missing the list. I also considered giving Greinke a nod because his unusual HR rate making his overall numbers worse.
AL MVP
1. Jose Bautista, TOR
2. Miguel Cabrera, DET
3. Jacoby Ellsbury, BOS
4. Justin Verlander, DET
5. CC Sabathia, NYY
6. Mike Napoli, TEX
7. Curtis Granderson, NYY
8. Dustin Pedroia, BOS
9. Adrian Gonzalez, BOS
10. Alex Gordon, KCR
Let me first say that I wanted to put Robinson Cano on this list, but he just missed, and I feel bad about that, because he had a great year. Napoli is probably a little higher than he would be on most people's lists, but he basically led the AL (or was second to Bautista) in every meaningful rate stat. The fact that he only played 113 games because he had one small injury and plays catcher is not something I'm going to hold against him too terribly much. In a year when Josh Hamilton and Nelson Cruz underperformed, Napoli could be counted on to come through time and again. As for Bautista at the top, well, that's just how I feel. I think if you put him on the Red Sox, they finish with the best record in baseball, instead of missing the playoffs completely. I can't really see a strong argument for any other player except Verlander, who's a bit overrated this year (and is pretty much neck-and-neck with Sabathia, in my book), Cabrera, who doesn't seem to get much national love because of the Verlander hype, or Ellsbury, who just flat-out wasn't as good. Basically, the top-5 are all good choices. But Bautista's my guy. And one last thing: it was really fun to put a Royal on here and be totally serious about it. Gordon finally had the breakout season we've all been waiting for him to have.
NL MVP
1. Matt Kemp, LAD
2. Ryan Braun, MIL
3. Joey Votto, CIN
4. Jose Reyes, NYM
5. Roy Halladay, PHI
6. Cliff Lee, PHI
7. Clayton Kershaw, LAD
8. Justin Upton, ARI
9. Prince Fielder, MIL
10. Troy Tulowitzki, COL
Definitely a hard one for me. I wish I could vote for Braun. I really do. He was outstanding. He's really picked up his defensive game, and as a Brewers fan, I know how huge he was for the team. He's been my favorite player on the team ever since he came up, and I'd love to give him my vote. But even as a homer, I can't ignore how awesome Matt Kemp was. By the traditional measures, he was the best, even playing in a pitcher's park. In the advanced metrics, he laps the field. So it has to be Kemp. The most bizarre thing about this is excluding the name “Albert Pujols.” I thought about including him, just for old times' sakes, but he didn't have a noticeably better year than teammates Lance Berkman or Matt Holliday, nor for that matter some guys like Pablo Sandoval, Brandon Phillips, Shane Victorino, or Andrew McCutchen, and I wasn't going to vote for any of them, so he gets left off. As for the other players, it's really too close to call. They could have gone in pretty much any order, although Reyes would have definitely been higher had it not been for the injury. Votto had an awesome year, and is completely overlooked. Fielder's a little overrated because of his awesome clutchiness this season, but he had another great campaign. Overall, just a really strong crop in the NL, and really tough choices. It'd probably be different if I did it again tomorrow, especially 3-10.
Also, since there's nowhere else to put this, I want to give myself credit for the best idea of the year, because I had it before the Brewers did. The day they signed Mark Kotsay, I said to my father on the phone, “Why would they sign an old guy who can't run and doesn't hit well when Nyjer Morgan is still available? I know he has a reputation as a clubhouse cancer, but he's fast and would make a good defensive replacement and pinch runner, if nothing else. And it would give us a lefthanded bat, just like Kotsay.” Apparently, Brewers GM Doug Melvin heard that conversation or something, signed Morgan, and the rest is history, Tony Plush and all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)