Hello again, everyone.
There are a whole lot of tributes out there to Gary Carter today, and justifiably so. These tributes range from the purely statistical to the sappy and emotional; career highlights to personal remembrances; there are those who want to take this time to think only on the happy memories, and those who want to put the full man together in order to gain perspective. Grief is a complicated thing, and it makes sense that people would have so many different responses to Carter's passing.
It seems that much of the main-line baseball blogosphere is filled with people in their 40s and 50s (with some in their 30s), which makes sense, because they have had time to establish themselves. These are also the people on whom Gary Carter had the biggest impact, as they saw him as a young phenom in Montreal, and they saw him win a World Championship as a Met - and he was one of the major players in the famous game-6 rally.
But the 1986 World Series ended 11 days before I was born. Rob Neyer (click on "Gary" above to read the piece) wrote this morning that, in 1999, only 33% of the BBWAA voted for Carter for the Hall of Fame. I remember that same year worrying that this guy who was gaining momentum, Gary Carter, may prevent Robin Yount from entering the Hall on the first ballot, and that would just be stupid, because, you know - he was Robin Yount. He had to be a first ballot guy, because he was one of the greatest players of all-time (full disclosure: I do agree with that statement, but growing up in Milwaukee may give one an overly optimistic view of Yount). I didn't want this Carter - whoever he was - taking that away from Robin.
But, of course, hindsight is 20/20.
As it turns out, it was Yount who took votes away from Carter, and Robin was elected while Gary had to wait. Both were great players, and both were deserving of first-ballot induction, if you ask me. And that's where we come to. Because my greatest memory of Carter is somewhat antagonistic, I think I'll stick to the stats. Last month, I revealed my new statistical measure for Hall of Fame worthiness: WARSCOR. If you want more details, read the post. Needless to say, perhaps, what I want to discuss is Gary Carter, and his WARSCOR. Here are the top 9 catchers of all-time, and their WARSCORs (if you're wondering why nine, it's because those are the legit full-time catchers who have an argument for being the best ever, in my opinion):
Bench - 56.7
Carter - 52.5
Berra - 52.3
Piazza - 48.3
Dickey - 48.1
Cochrane - 46.2
Fisk - 44.8
Hartnett - 43.8
Rodriguez - 43.4
Keeping in mind that I only used gWAR (or The Baseball Gauge's WAR system), I thought that maybe I should try the other WAR systems out there. So that's what I did. Here they are, by rWAR, fWAR, and WARP, respectively:
Bench - 52.9
Carter - 50.5
Piazza - 48.0
Rodriguez - 46.0
Fisk - 45.0
Berra - 44.6
Cochrane - 40.5
Dickey - 39.8
Hartnett - 34.5
Bench - 60.1
Carter - 53.6
Piazza - 52.4
Berra - 50.3
Rodriguez - 48.7
Fisk - 48.6
Dickey - 46.1
Cochrane - 43.6
Hartnett - 38.1
Bench - 56.5
Piazza - 52.9
Carter - 49.0
Berra* - 46.8
Fisk - 46.0
Rodriguez - 38.3
Dickey - N/A
Cochrane - N/A
Hartnett - N/A
*WARP data is only from 1950 on, so does not include Dickey, Cochrane, nor Hartnett; nor does it include Yogi Berra's first four seasons (1946-1949).
So, if you buy into my method (which, let's face it, you should, as I think it's an improvement on JAWS, CAWS, or wWAR), by 3 of the 4 WAR systems, Carter ranks as the #2 backstop of all-time, the only exception being WARP, which has him at #3. For reference, JAWS has him at #4, wWAR has him at #2, and CAWS has him at #4. The fact that Carter was on the ballot before Fisk, but got in after is pretty inexplicable in light of this information - especially when all of these systems rank him above Fisk. I'm not trying to denigrate Fisk - just point out that it's very, very reasonable to conjecture that Gary Carter is the 2nd greatest catcher ever. Rest in Peace, Gary. Your fans will miss you. And baseball will miss you - the second greatest catcher of all-time!
Friday, February 17, 2012
Monday, January 30, 2012
What Is a Compiler?
As you'll note from my last post, I've been playing around with a group of 500 players and assessing their worthiness for the Hall of Fame. One of the things that has always irked me about the Hall is when people talk about "compilers." Seriously - what's a compiler? Someone who sticks around forever and keeps putting up decent stats. Why is that bad? Isn't it good to have a long career? Well, of course it is. I do understand the perspective that if a guy gets 100 hits for 30 years to get to 3000, it's not the same as a guy who got 200 hits for ten, then 150 for 5 years, 100 more, then retired and fell short of 3000. But usually, when people argue against "compilers," it's really just a coded argument for, "The stats don't match my opinions, so I'll throw out a derogatory term to slight the player, instead of reconsidering my underlying assumptions." And that's really not what you want, especially from Hall of Fame voters.
Anyway, I don't just want to rant against Hall voters (though, really - who doesn't enjoy that?). What I'd like to propose is a quick mathematical model to see who the "compilers" really are. As in my last post, I'm using WAR as calculated on The Baseball Gauge. The method is simple: Take "peak" to be the player's ten best seasons. Then do some quick division: peak/career. Since I already had a pool of Hall-of-Fame-type players, I thought to just do the calculation quickly on them. I looked at the bottom thirty players - those for whom peak value was 68.4% or less of their career value. Here they are, in descending order:
That's right. The #1 compiler of all time is . . . Hank Aaron? Well, actually, it makes a lot of sense. Aaron was lauded for his consistency as a player, even when you adjust for ballpark, era, etc. So only 59% of his career value is wrapped up in his peak. Likewise, the next three players had such long and excellent careers that they can't be blamed for putting up value in those others seasons. There are some other odd outliers, too. Eckersley, for example: the reason he shows up is because most of his value was as a starter, but his seasons as a reliever were so good that they were quite valuable, too. So he shows up, but probably not the way it's meant. So here are the classic "compilers," as the argument is made, who show up in this cursory survey (Player, Rank; Peak WAR, Career WAR, %):
Don Sutton, #6; 52.0, 86.8, .599
Tommy John, #11; 37.4, 59.7, .626
Bert Blyleven, #21; 64.9, 97.0, .669
Pete Rose, #22; 54.1, 80.3, .674
Phil Niekro, #23; 68.7, 101.4, .678
Gaylord Perry, #27; 65.2, 95.5, .683
Lou Whitaker, #28; 45.8, 67.1, .683
So, it actually appears that there may be some validity to this criticism of these players, after all. Particularly, there is a lot of question about John, because his peak was pretty unspectacular. However, I would say that, excepting an extreme case like his, the "compiler" argument doesn't hold water, because most of the greatest players of all-time were compilers, too. I guess I just don't see, "You have a lot in common with Hank Aaron" as being that bad of a criticism, is all.
Thanks to The Baseball Gauge for the data (see above for link.).
Anyway, I don't just want to rant against Hall voters (though, really - who doesn't enjoy that?). What I'd like to propose is a quick mathematical model to see who the "compilers" really are. As in my last post, I'm using WAR as calculated on The Baseball Gauge. The method is simple: Take "peak" to be the player's ten best seasons. Then do some quick division: peak/career. Since I already had a pool of Hall-of-Fame-type players, I thought to just do the calculation quickly on them. I looked at the bottom thirty players - those for whom peak value was 68.4% or less of their career value. Here they are, in descending order:
| Warren | Spahn |
| Al | Kaline |
| Lou | Whitaker |
| Gaylord | Perry |
| Stan | Musial |
| Red | Ruffing |
| Honus | Wagner |
| Phil | Niekro |
| Pete | Rose |
| Bert | Blyleven |
| Jack | Quinn |
| Mel | Ott |
| Greg | Maddux |
| Rickey | Henderson |
| Tris | Speaker |
| Frank | Robinson |
| Hoyt | Wilhelm |
| Jim | O'Rourke |
| Barry | Bonds |
| Tommy | John |
| Babe | Ruth |
| Willie | Mays |
| Ty | Cobb |
| Roger | Clemens |
| Dennis | Eckersley |
| Don | Sutton |
| Nolan | Ryan |
| Cap | Anson |
| Cy | Young |
| Hank | Aaron |
That's right. The #1 compiler of all time is . . . Hank Aaron? Well, actually, it makes a lot of sense. Aaron was lauded for his consistency as a player, even when you adjust for ballpark, era, etc. So only 59% of his career value is wrapped up in his peak. Likewise, the next three players had such long and excellent careers that they can't be blamed for putting up value in those others seasons. There are some other odd outliers, too. Eckersley, for example: the reason he shows up is because most of his value was as a starter, but his seasons as a reliever were so good that they were quite valuable, too. So he shows up, but probably not the way it's meant. So here are the classic "compilers," as the argument is made, who show up in this cursory survey (Player, Rank; Peak WAR, Career WAR, %):
Don Sutton, #6; 52.0, 86.8, .599
Tommy John, #11; 37.4, 59.7, .626
Bert Blyleven, #21; 64.9, 97.0, .669
Pete Rose, #22; 54.1, 80.3, .674
Phil Niekro, #23; 68.7, 101.4, .678
Gaylord Perry, #27; 65.2, 95.5, .683
Lou Whitaker, #28; 45.8, 67.1, .683
So, it actually appears that there may be some validity to this criticism of these players, after all. Particularly, there is a lot of question about John, because his peak was pretty unspectacular. However, I would say that, excepting an extreme case like his, the "compiler" argument doesn't hold water, because most of the greatest players of all-time were compilers, too. I guess I just don't see, "You have a lot in common with Hank Aaron" as being that bad of a criticism, is all.
Thanks to The Baseball Gauge for the data (see above for link.).
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Baseball Hall of Fame Rankings
For a while, I've been envisioning a system to rank players by Hall of Fame worthiness. There are a couple of problems, though. First, I had no access to good data. Second, the market is already flooded with good systems - Bill James Hall of Fame Monitor and Hall of Fame Standards (which rank likelihood of entering the Hall, not merit), Jay Jaffe's JAWS system at Baseball Prospectus, Mike Hoban's CAWS system at Seamheads, and Adam Darowski's wWAR system at Baseball Think Factory. They each use different mathematical models and bases - James uses standard, "newspaper" statistics; Jaffe uses Baseball Prospectus' WARP (Wins Above Replacement Player); Hoban uses Bill James Win Shares; and Darowski uses rWAR (or, as some would call it, bWAR) - the system invented by Rally (Sean Smith) and the most common WAR system, thanks to being hosted at baseball-reference.com. While the systems are different (and I don't really want to get into the nitty-gritty here - go to their sites to find out if you're really interested), they reach largely the same conclusions. So why would I want to do it myself when I don't have the data and there's already good stuff out there?
Well, for one, I have always found value in doing something myself, even if others have already come up with a way to do things. Second of all, these systems all do some things with which I disagree. Third, I found a way to get the data I needed. Over at one of the sites I frequent, The Baseball Gauge, the proprietor, Dan Hirsch, has all of his data free for download. I actually needed a little extra help, but he's super nice about stuff, and we corresponded over e-mail and he helped to give me what I needed. He developed a WAR system over there (Base Runs for offense; Runs Saved, similar to Win Shares, for defense; DIPS 2.0 for pitching), and it's free to use.
So now that I had the data, what was my problem with the other systems. Well, several of them (and others online) use some arbitrary cutoffs - something along the line of [peakWAR+careerWAR]/2. That's the basic formula. Of course, there's really nothing wrong with that. However, how does one define "peak" WAR? 4 seasons? 5 seasons? 7 seasons? 10 seasons? I've seen all of those iterations. So I went to work on the problem. Here are the basic principles to which I stuck through this process.
1.) 10 seasons is the key. Why? Well, it's not arbitrary, for one. The Baseball Hall of Fame requires 10 seasons played for entry. Since that's one of the few rules, it makes sense to me to stick to it.
2.) Big seasons are better than consistency. Imagine two guys with 8 WAR. One of them has 7 WAR one year, 1 the next. The second guy has 4 each year. I prefer the first guy, because with a season that big, you're almost guaranteed to make the playoffs, and have a shot at the World Series. With the second guy, well, lots of guys manage 4 WAR. That may not help the team win. And sure, the first guys may not help at all the second year (with only 1 WAR, he'd be a sub-average player), but, as they say, "Flags fly forever" - in other words, the goal is to win, and you can't take a win a pennant. So the more a player helps to win a pennant, the more it counts. Of course, I'm not counting actual pennants, so I'm going with the seasons that give you the best chance of winning pennants - the biggest seasons.
3.) More different things will give a better estimate than just one thing. I used three different systems, each consisting of two parts. I'll explain.
So, here's the actual system. First, rank the seasons, descending from best WAR to worst. Then...
#1: Add up total WAR. (=A)
#2: Add up total WAR in top ten seasons. (=B)
#3: Add up total WAR, counting the top season 30 times, the next season 29 times, the next season 28 times, the next season 27 times, etc., until you've exhausted all the player's seasons. Then divide by 30. (=C)
#4: Add up total WAR in top ten seasons, counting the top season 10 times, the next season 9 times, the next season 8 times, the next season 7 times, etc., until you've used up all ten seasons. Then divide by 10. (=D)
#5: Add up total WAR, counting the top season 45 times, the next season 44 times, the next season 43 times, the next season 42 times, etc., until you've exhausted all the player's seasons. Then divide by 45. (=E)
#6: Add up total WAR in top ten seasons, counting the top season 15 times, the next season 14 times, the next season 13 times, the next season 12 times, etc., until you reach the tenth season, which will count six times. Then divide by 15. (=F)
#7: You'll now have six numbers, any of which could be the best indicator. So now, we take the harmonic mean of the six numbers:
6/[(1/A)+(1/B)+(1/C)+(1/D)+(1/E)+(1/F)]
Voila!
For example, here are some lists. The top 11 at third base:
schmimi01 Mike Schmidt 94.7 70.9 75.5 41.3 81.9 51.2 63.9
matheed01 Eddie Mathews 88.2 68.9 71.1 40.7 76.8 50.1 61.6
boggswa01 Wade Boggs 76.5 61.9 62.8 38.5 67.3 46.3 55.8
brettge01 George Brett 78.0 59.4 63.1 36.6 68.1 44.2 54.5
jonesch06 Chipper Jones 71.9 52.8 56.7 31.2 61.7 38.4 48.1
bakerfr01 Frank Baker 56.5 54.4 49.6 35.4 51.9 41.7 47.0
santoro01 Ron Santo 56.1 53.4 48.9 34.1 51.3 40.6 46.0
hackst01 Stan Hack 58.6 49.4 48.9 30.8 52.1 37.0 44.0
evansda01 Darrell Evans 59.1 45.5 47.8 28.4 51.6 34.1 41.7
mcgrajo01 John McGraw 48.0 46.9 42.8 32.4 44.5 37.3 41.2
rolensc01 Scott Rolen 53.7 47.7 45.2 28.7 48.0 35.0 41.1
The top 12 at catcher (because I was part of the discussion over at Baseball: Past and Present):
benchjo01 Johnny Bench 75.2 63.5 63.0 39.8 67.1 47.7 56.7
cartega01 Gary Carter 68.7 60.2 57.6 37.0 61.3 44.7 52.5
berrayo01 Yogi Berra 75.2 58.4 60.4 34.6 65.3 42.6 52.3
piazzmi01 Mike Piazza 61.0 54.7 52.2 35.3 55.1 41.8 48.3
dickebi01 Bill Dickey 67.5 52.9 54.9 32.7 59.1 39.4 48.1
cochrmi01 Mickey Cochrane 58.7 53.8 50.0 33.0 52.9 40.0 46.2
fiskca01 Carlton Fisk 67.8 47.4 53.2 29.5 58.1 35.5 44.8
hartnga01 Gabby Hartnett 64.4 47.5 51.3 29.1 55.6 35.2 43.8
rodriiv01 Ivan Rodriguez 65.2 47.0 51.2 28.3 55.9 34.5 43.4
torrejo01 Joe Torre 55.3 46.2 46.2 29.5 49.2 35.1 41.6
simmote01 Ted Simmons 52.5 47.9 45.3 28.6 47.7 35.0 41.0
tenacge01 Gene Tenace 48.0 44.3 41.4 28.5 43.6 33.7 38.6
How about the only 3 DHs I checked, because that's a short list:
molitpa01 Paul Molitor 64.9 49.9 51.8 28.8 56.2 35.9 44.4
martied01 Edgar Martinez 57.9 49.5 48.1 29.2 51.4 36.0 42.9
baineha01 Harold Baines 36.9 28.1 30.0 17.4 32.3 21.0 25.9
One last one. How about top 11 CF:
cobbty01 Ty Cobb 153.2 95.1 112.3 57.3 126.0 69.9 91.4
speaktr01 Tris Speaker 138.5 88.5 103.7 52.3 115.3 64.4 83.9
mantlmi01 Mickey Mantle 120.4 87.8 95.1 53.4 103.6 64.8 81.1
mayswi01 Willie Mays 136.5 85.0 101.0 49.0 112.8 61.0 80.4
dimagjo01 Joe DiMaggio 80.8 69.3 67.6 42.0 72.0 51.1 60.7
griffke02 Ken Griffey 74.4 59.6 60.2 35.5 65.0 43.8 52.9
hamilbi01 Billy Hamilton 70.8 61.2 58.9 36.0 62.9 44.4 52.8
snidedu01 Duke Snider 62.5 54.5 52.8 34.9 56.0 41.4 48.4
wynnji01 Jimmy Wynn 57.4 55.5 50.1 35.3 52.6 42.1 47.4
careyma01 Max Carey 67.7 52.6 54.5 31.3 58.9 38.4 47.2
edmonji01 Jim Edmonds 59.2 52.0 49.7 31.9 52.9 38.6 45.3
Hope that was interesting. I'd love to hear thoughts about this kind of stuff.
As one final thing, I'd just like to thank Dan Hirsch for all his help, and to recommend The Baseball Gauge to anyone out there reading this. It's a great resource.
Well, for one, I have always found value in doing something myself, even if others have already come up with a way to do things. Second of all, these systems all do some things with which I disagree. Third, I found a way to get the data I needed. Over at one of the sites I frequent, The Baseball Gauge, the proprietor, Dan Hirsch, has all of his data free for download. I actually needed a little extra help, but he's super nice about stuff, and we corresponded over e-mail and he helped to give me what I needed. He developed a WAR system over there (Base Runs for offense; Runs Saved, similar to Win Shares, for defense; DIPS 2.0 for pitching), and it's free to use.
So now that I had the data, what was my problem with the other systems. Well, several of them (and others online) use some arbitrary cutoffs - something along the line of [peakWAR+careerWAR]/2. That's the basic formula. Of course, there's really nothing wrong with that. However, how does one define "peak" WAR? 4 seasons? 5 seasons? 7 seasons? 10 seasons? I've seen all of those iterations. So I went to work on the problem. Here are the basic principles to which I stuck through this process.
1.) 10 seasons is the key. Why? Well, it's not arbitrary, for one. The Baseball Hall of Fame requires 10 seasons played for entry. Since that's one of the few rules, it makes sense to me to stick to it.
2.) Big seasons are better than consistency. Imagine two guys with 8 WAR. One of them has 7 WAR one year, 1 the next. The second guy has 4 each year. I prefer the first guy, because with a season that big, you're almost guaranteed to make the playoffs, and have a shot at the World Series. With the second guy, well, lots of guys manage 4 WAR. That may not help the team win. And sure, the first guys may not help at all the second year (with only 1 WAR, he'd be a sub-average player), but, as they say, "Flags fly forever" - in other words, the goal is to win, and you can't take a win a pennant. So the more a player helps to win a pennant, the more it counts. Of course, I'm not counting actual pennants, so I'm going with the seasons that give you the best chance of winning pennants - the biggest seasons.
3.) More different things will give a better estimate than just one thing. I used three different systems, each consisting of two parts. I'll explain.
So, here's the actual system. First, rank the seasons, descending from best WAR to worst. Then...
#1: Add up total WAR. (=A)
#2: Add up total WAR in top ten seasons. (=B)
#3: Add up total WAR, counting the top season 30 times, the next season 29 times, the next season 28 times, the next season 27 times, etc., until you've exhausted all the player's seasons. Then divide by 30. (=C)
#4: Add up total WAR in top ten seasons, counting the top season 10 times, the next season 9 times, the next season 8 times, the next season 7 times, etc., until you've used up all ten seasons. Then divide by 10. (=D)
#5: Add up total WAR, counting the top season 45 times, the next season 44 times, the next season 43 times, the next season 42 times, etc., until you've exhausted all the player's seasons. Then divide by 45. (=E)
#6: Add up total WAR in top ten seasons, counting the top season 15 times, the next season 14 times, the next season 13 times, the next season 12 times, etc., until you reach the tenth season, which will count six times. Then divide by 15. (=F)
#7: You'll now have six numbers, any of which could be the best indicator. So now, we take the harmonic mean of the six numbers:
6/[(1/A)+(1/B)+(1/C)+(1/D)+(1/E)+(1/F)]
Voila!
For example, here are some lists. The top 11 at third base:
schmimi01 Mike Schmidt 94.7 70.9 75.5 41.3 81.9 51.2 63.9
matheed01 Eddie Mathews 88.2 68.9 71.1 40.7 76.8 50.1 61.6
boggswa01 Wade Boggs 76.5 61.9 62.8 38.5 67.3 46.3 55.8
brettge01 George Brett 78.0 59.4 63.1 36.6 68.1 44.2 54.5
jonesch06 Chipper Jones 71.9 52.8 56.7 31.2 61.7 38.4 48.1
bakerfr01 Frank Baker 56.5 54.4 49.6 35.4 51.9 41.7 47.0
santoro01 Ron Santo 56.1 53.4 48.9 34.1 51.3 40.6 46.0
hackst01 Stan Hack 58.6 49.4 48.9 30.8 52.1 37.0 44.0
evansda01 Darrell Evans 59.1 45.5 47.8 28.4 51.6 34.1 41.7
mcgrajo01 John McGraw 48.0 46.9 42.8 32.4 44.5 37.3 41.2
rolensc01 Scott Rolen 53.7 47.7 45.2 28.7 48.0 35.0 41.1
The top 12 at catcher (because I was part of the discussion over at Baseball: Past and Present):
benchjo01 Johnny Bench 75.2 63.5 63.0 39.8 67.1 47.7 56.7
cartega01 Gary Carter 68.7 60.2 57.6 37.0 61.3 44.7 52.5
berrayo01 Yogi Berra 75.2 58.4 60.4 34.6 65.3 42.6 52.3
piazzmi01 Mike Piazza 61.0 54.7 52.2 35.3 55.1 41.8 48.3
dickebi01 Bill Dickey 67.5 52.9 54.9 32.7 59.1 39.4 48.1
cochrmi01 Mickey Cochrane 58.7 53.8 50.0 33.0 52.9 40.0 46.2
fiskca01 Carlton Fisk 67.8 47.4 53.2 29.5 58.1 35.5 44.8
hartnga01 Gabby Hartnett 64.4 47.5 51.3 29.1 55.6 35.2 43.8
rodriiv01 Ivan Rodriguez 65.2 47.0 51.2 28.3 55.9 34.5 43.4
torrejo01 Joe Torre 55.3 46.2 46.2 29.5 49.2 35.1 41.6
simmote01 Ted Simmons 52.5 47.9 45.3 28.6 47.7 35.0 41.0
tenacge01 Gene Tenace 48.0 44.3 41.4 28.5 43.6 33.7 38.6
How about the only 3 DHs I checked, because that's a short list:
molitpa01 Paul Molitor 64.9 49.9 51.8 28.8 56.2 35.9 44.4
martied01 Edgar Martinez 57.9 49.5 48.1 29.2 51.4 36.0 42.9
baineha01 Harold Baines 36.9 28.1 30.0 17.4 32.3 21.0 25.9
One last one. How about top 11 CF:
cobbty01 Ty Cobb 153.2 95.1 112.3 57.3 126.0 69.9 91.4
speaktr01 Tris Speaker 138.5 88.5 103.7 52.3 115.3 64.4 83.9
mantlmi01 Mickey Mantle 120.4 87.8 95.1 53.4 103.6 64.8 81.1
mayswi01 Willie Mays 136.5 85.0 101.0 49.0 112.8 61.0 80.4
dimagjo01 Joe DiMaggio 80.8 69.3 67.6 42.0 72.0 51.1 60.7
griffke02 Ken Griffey 74.4 59.6 60.2 35.5 65.0 43.8 52.9
hamilbi01 Billy Hamilton 70.8 61.2 58.9 36.0 62.9 44.4 52.8
snidedu01 Duke Snider 62.5 54.5 52.8 34.9 56.0 41.4 48.4
wynnji01 Jimmy Wynn 57.4 55.5 50.1 35.3 52.6 42.1 47.4
careyma01 Max Carey 67.7 52.6 54.5 31.3 58.9 38.4 47.2
edmonji01 Jim Edmonds 59.2 52.0 49.7 31.9 52.9 38.6 45.3
Hope that was interesting. I'd love to hear thoughts about this kind of stuff.
As one final thing, I'd just like to thank Dan Hirsch for all his help, and to recommend The Baseball Gauge to anyone out there reading this. It's a great resource.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
The Baseball Hall of Fame, 2013 Preview
Long time no write!
As of my last writing, Ron Santo was the newest inductee to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Well, on his heels yesterday came the announcement that Barry Larkin would be joining him. Congrats to Barry. My all-time favorite non-Brewers player is going into the Hall! He's really the first player I've ever had any emotional attachment to who got the call to Cooperstown, so I'm pretty excited (although that excitement is just a bit muted by the fact that his election this year was pretty inevitable).
Anyway, what better time to talk about next year's ballot than today? Is it a bit disrespectful to the inductee? Nah - yesterday was his day, and he gets an even bigger day this summer. Rather, I think that, with one of the most loaded ballots in history coming up next year, it's about time we discussed that. So what will next year's ballot look like?
Here are the holdovers from the ballot:
Jack Morris
Jeff Bagwell
Lee Smith
Tim Raines
Alan Trammell
Edgar Martinez
Fred McGriff
Larry Walker
Mark McGwire
Don Mattingly
Dale Murphy
Rafael Palmeiro
Bernie Williams
And here are the (notable/vote-able) guys who are going to appear on the ballot for the first time:
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Mike Piazza
Sammy Sosa
Curt Schilling
Craig Biggio
Kenny Lofton
Upgrade-of-Jack-Morris-with-worse-press . . . I mean, David Wells
Then, the handful of guys who deserve a couple of votes next year:
Julio Franco
Steve Finley
Reggie Sanders
Jeff Cirillo
Shawn Green
Maybe the all-time record holder for most fingers, Antonio Alfonseca
Compared to this year's first-year class, or as I like to call them, "Bernie Williams and the Pips," it's pretty amazing how stacked next year will be. One of the big predictions people are making is that, because Jack Morris garnered 2/3 of the vote this year, his election is inevitable. Well, I could actually see him taking a step back next year because of the loaded ballot. And I'm not really sure that ANYONE will garner election next year. If I had to guess, I would be Morris, Schilling, or Biggio (in no particular order) who would be most likely, because of the steroid stain on the others. And the next year's not much better. It will add:
Greg Maddux
Frank Thomas
Tom Glavine
Jeff Kent
Mike Mussina
Luis Gonzalez
Eric Gagne
Moises Alou
Kenny Rogers
All of those guys should get SOME votes, and I would venture to say that Maddux is automatically a first-ballot guy.
Anyway, what I really want to write about is what my ballot would have been/would be this year, next year, and the year after.
First, my strategy. I think the Hall voters are too stingy. Were I one of them, I'd vote for ten guys every year until there weren't even 10 remotely electable guys left. Sure, I might use one of those ten as a "courtesy" vote, but I'd fill my ballot. This year:
Barry Larkin
Jeff Bagwell
Tim Raines
Alan Trammell
Edgar Martinez
Fred McGriff
Larry Walker
Mark McGwire
Rafael Palmeiro
Brad Radke
My tenth vote could have just as easily gone to Dale Murphy, but I would have shown Bradke some love. Anyway, with Larkin (and Radke) disappearing from the ballot and the aforementioned new class, here is my preliminary ballot for next year:
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Jeff Bagwell
Tim Raines
Alan Trammell
Sammy Sosa
Curt Schilling
Craig Biggio
Edgar Martinez
Mark McGwire
That was really, really tough. And like I said, I don't really expect anyone on next year's ballot to get elected. So that creates my 2014 ballot:
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Greg Maddux
Jeff Bagwell
Frank Thomas
Tim Raines
Craig Biggio
Curt Schilling
Mike Piazza
Mark McGwire
That's right, I left off Alan Trammell, Edgar Martinez, Sammy Sosa, Fred McGriff, Larry Walker, Rafael Palmeiro, Tom Glavine, Mike Mussina, Kenny Lofton, and Dale Murphy (all of whom I see as HOF guys) off the ballot. That's ten guys - a FULL BALLOT. So if no one gets elected next year, which seems reasonable, the backlog becomes pretty much untenable. I don't know that pretty much ANYONE ever gets elected again, because there may always be too many bodies stuck in the doorway, so no one can get through. It will be interesting to see how all of this player out.
As of my last writing, Ron Santo was the newest inductee to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Well, on his heels yesterday came the announcement that Barry Larkin would be joining him. Congrats to Barry. My all-time favorite non-Brewers player is going into the Hall! He's really the first player I've ever had any emotional attachment to who got the call to Cooperstown, so I'm pretty excited (although that excitement is just a bit muted by the fact that his election this year was pretty inevitable).
Anyway, what better time to talk about next year's ballot than today? Is it a bit disrespectful to the inductee? Nah - yesterday was his day, and he gets an even bigger day this summer. Rather, I think that, with one of the most loaded ballots in history coming up next year, it's about time we discussed that. So what will next year's ballot look like?
Here are the holdovers from the ballot:
Jack Morris
Jeff Bagwell
Lee Smith
Tim Raines
Alan Trammell
Edgar Martinez
Fred McGriff
Larry Walker
Mark McGwire
Don Mattingly
Dale Murphy
Rafael Palmeiro
Bernie Williams
And here are the (notable/vote-able) guys who are going to appear on the ballot for the first time:
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Mike Piazza
Sammy Sosa
Curt Schilling
Craig Biggio
Kenny Lofton
Upgrade-of-Jack-Morris-with-worse-press . . . I mean, David Wells
Then, the handful of guys who deserve a couple of votes next year:
Julio Franco
Steve Finley
Reggie Sanders
Jeff Cirillo
Shawn Green
Maybe the all-time record holder for most fingers, Antonio Alfonseca
Compared to this year's first-year class, or as I like to call them, "Bernie Williams and the Pips," it's pretty amazing how stacked next year will be. One of the big predictions people are making is that, because Jack Morris garnered 2/3 of the vote this year, his election is inevitable. Well, I could actually see him taking a step back next year because of the loaded ballot. And I'm not really sure that ANYONE will garner election next year. If I had to guess, I would be Morris, Schilling, or Biggio (in no particular order) who would be most likely, because of the steroid stain on the others. And the next year's not much better. It will add:
Greg Maddux
Frank Thomas
Tom Glavine
Jeff Kent
Mike Mussina
Luis Gonzalez
Eric Gagne
Moises Alou
Kenny Rogers
All of those guys should get SOME votes, and I would venture to say that Maddux is automatically a first-ballot guy.
Anyway, what I really want to write about is what my ballot would have been/would be this year, next year, and the year after.
First, my strategy. I think the Hall voters are too stingy. Were I one of them, I'd vote for ten guys every year until there weren't even 10 remotely electable guys left. Sure, I might use one of those ten as a "courtesy" vote, but I'd fill my ballot. This year:
Barry Larkin
Jeff Bagwell
Tim Raines
Alan Trammell
Edgar Martinez
Fred McGriff
Larry Walker
Mark McGwire
Rafael Palmeiro
Brad Radke
My tenth vote could have just as easily gone to Dale Murphy, but I would have shown Bradke some love. Anyway, with Larkin (and Radke) disappearing from the ballot and the aforementioned new class, here is my preliminary ballot for next year:
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Jeff Bagwell
Tim Raines
Alan Trammell
Sammy Sosa
Curt Schilling
Craig Biggio
Edgar Martinez
Mark McGwire
That was really, really tough. And like I said, I don't really expect anyone on next year's ballot to get elected. So that creates my 2014 ballot:
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Greg Maddux
Jeff Bagwell
Frank Thomas
Tim Raines
Craig Biggio
Curt Schilling
Mike Piazza
Mark McGwire
That's right, I left off Alan Trammell, Edgar Martinez, Sammy Sosa, Fred McGriff, Larry Walker, Rafael Palmeiro, Tom Glavine, Mike Mussina, Kenny Lofton, and Dale Murphy (all of whom I see as HOF guys) off the ballot. That's ten guys - a FULL BALLOT. So if no one gets elected next year, which seems reasonable, the backlog becomes pretty much untenable. I don't know that pretty much ANYONE ever gets elected again, because there may always be too many bodies stuck in the doorway, so no one can get through. It will be interesting to see how all of this player out.
Monday, December 12, 2011
The Baseball Hall of Fame
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?
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?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)