Another HOF vote has come and gone, happily with better results than last year’s fiasco. But, there will be some crowded ballots in the next few years, so one can only hope that deserving players don’t drop off with unseemly haste.
There will, in fact, be so many notable players on coming ballots that I thought it could be useful to try to organize them in some structured way, if only to provide an objective way to assess the performance of voters in the coming elections.
After the jump, a handicapper’s guide to coming Hall of Fame elections.
Let’s start with a look at the current Hall of Fame members based on their all-time positional WAR ranking as of the end of the 2013 season. For position players, ranking in the WAR top 10 for a position constitutes tier I, in the top 25 tier II and outside the top 25 is tier III. The same idea for pitchers except that for tiers I, II and III, it’s the top 40, top 100 and outside the top 100. For DH, I’ve arbitrarily set a 60 WAR minimum to be considered in tier I.
So, the voters haven’t done a terrible job. 75% of the enshrined players do come from the tier I and tier II groupings. With 211 current HOF players (those elected for their play in the major leagues), a uniform distribution by position should be about 17 or 18 players at each position and about 70 pitchers. Thus, I’ve shaded the rows to indicate positions that are under-represented (green) and over-represented (red). The percentage scores that are highlighted indicate where the current distribution by tier may be a little out of whack with greater representation from a lower tier than from a higher one.
Next are the breakouts by position. I called this a handicapper’s guide, but I’m not going to be quoting any odds on future candidates (though, you are welcome to do so in your comments). For each position, I’ve grouped players into the three tiers based on their career WAR ranking. The playing position assigned to a player is the one each played more frequently than any other, but a player’s WAR rating includes his total (all positions) batting or pitching WAR. In a few cases (I’ll tell you when we come to them), I’ve added together batting and pitching WAR for players who had significant quantities of both.
For each position, the Hall of Fame members and contenders are presented as follows:
- The top line shows the number of players in the Hall of Fame by WAR-based tier. At the right are the players and WAR totals for the tier III HOFers. In assessing future candidates, players will probably need to be better than these tier III HOFers to have a decent chance of election.
- Next line are the the tier I (red) and tier II (black) players who have been snubbed, as they are either no longer on the ballot (including players dropped in the 2014 election) or have been declared ineligible. In assessing future candidates, these players may provide some guidance on borderline cases, or they may be used to assess the players who will drop from future ballots, perhaps unjustly.
- The last two lines are the players to be handicapped. First are the players currently on the ballot, by tier I (red), tier II (black) and tier III (light brown). The ballot refers to the holdovers after the 2014 election, but not including players eligible for the 2015 vote. Next are the tier I (red) and tier II (black) players who are not yet eligible for election, many of whom will be appearing on upcoming ballots.
Pitcher
So, now that we have the preliminaries out of the way, let’s start with the pitchers.
The WAR scores shown are for pitching WAR only, except for Bob Lemon, Bob Caruthers, Tony Mullane and Wes Ferrell who have their total batting and pitching WAR shown. Also, Red Ruffing’s total WAR puts him among the tier I HOF members.
I considered separating the analysis into starters and relievers but ultimately decided against that in view of the voters’ preference to only recognize relievers who were either the “pioneers” of modern relief pitching or, among later pitchers, the undisputed masters of their craft. Of course, the latter category is currently populated only by Dennis Eckersley, recognized in his time much as Mariano Rivera is today. So, now that I’ve mentioned him, yes, I fully expect Mariano will be a first ballot pick to join Eck, confirming the lofty performance standard required of future HOF relievers.
The tier I current and future candidates all look like safe bets to me. Also Roy Halladay (just outside tier I). Hard to know how voters will treat John Smoltz; will he get extra credit for excelling at both starting and relieving or will he be the odd man out now that two of his long-time staff mates have been enshrined (probably the latter, unfortunately). Pettitte, as a Yankee, stands a good chance, but he will have to wait a while. If last season was a one-off and CC returns to form, he’s clearly on a HOF path (and he may be anyway, even if last year was the beginning of the end). Hudson and Buehrle (and Jamie Moyer, just outside the top 100) will likely come up short, as consistently very good pitchers but never really great.
Catcher
Catchers are currently under-represented but it would seem that should be rectified soon. Hard to see Piazza or Pudge having any problems getting in. Joe Mauer is an interesting case; he’s on a HOF trajectory but, since he stopped winning batting titles, it seems (to me) like he doesn’t get much notice anymore. Posada will get consideration based on being a Yankee, but no such luck for Kendall.
First Base
Tough competition at first with two 70+ WAR players outside the top 10, and a bunch of 50+ WAR players outside the top 25. Albert, of course, will be a first ballot selection and Thome will make it too. Bagwell should be in already; hopefully, it won’t be too much longer. McGwire and Helton are on the bubble; I don’t think either would be a bad choice, but my gut feel is both will come up short. Same for Fred McGriff, on the wrong side of the WAR top 25.
Second Base
With Biggio barely missing induction this year, seems he will almost certainly make it in the next few tries. As the best slugging second baseman since Rajah, there should be a spot for Jeff Kent, but that may be my wishful thinking. My hunch is Utley‘s late career start will leave his counting stats a bit shy of voters’ expectations for a HOFer. Robinson Cano moves into the top 25 in 2014 and is very much on a HOF trajectory.
Third Base
The most under-represented position in the Hall will get a boost as Chipper (lock) and Beltre (almost a lock) should both make it, with matching counting milestones of 400 HR, 500 doubles, 1500 RBI and 2500 hits. The hedge on Beltre is whether voters see A-Rod more as a third baseman than as a shortstop (since he hasn’t played short in a decade, bet on the former). If A-Rod gets in first, Beltre may have a tough time making it. All of that means tough luck for Scott Rolen, joining Graig Nettles as tier I players in the “snubbed” category. Miggy is obviously on a HOF trajectory and a case could be made that he’s already there; still, he started to show his age some last season so he’ll need to follow David Ortiz’s example and slim down to get the most out of his talent and career. Perhaps too soon to offer an opinion on David Wright who moves into the top 25 in 2014.
Shortstop
Last chance for Alan Trammell will come and go as he joins teammate Lou Whitaker among the most undeserved snubs. Derek Jeter will, of course, sail in. A-Rod’s baggage will make for a tougher road, more especially if voters see him as one of several deserving third basemen (as many likely will). Omar Vizquel (outside the top 25) will get some courtesy votes but will be gone pretty quickly.
Just a note that Monte Ward is included among the tier II HOF shortstops based on his combined batting and pitching WAR, despite probably more notoriety in the latter role, with his 69 wins and 12.2 WAR both tops among teenage hurlers.
Left Field
Is 15 years long enough for voters to warm to Barry? Maybe, but he’ll have to wait a while. Raines and Manny are well clear of the best left-fielders not in the Hall but they too will likely have to wait. Hopefully, none of them drops off the ballot – that would be a shame.
Center Field
Junior is a first ballot selection and Beltran should also make it with a boost from his post-season play. And, Andruw gets in too with his home runs and defense (especially the defense). The rest are on a par with the group they will join, as the best players not in the Hall.
Right Field
Despite being by far the most over-represented position in the Hall, Larry Walker should eventually shake the Coors stigma and get in. Gary Sheffield will get a look with his 500 homers but it won’t be enough to make up for his defense (-196 WAR Fielding Runs; only Jeter has a lower total). I would have picked Ichiro as a lock a couple of years ago, but his odds are getting longer the more he hangs on as a replacement level player. Still, I’ll go with almost a lock as voters will probably rationalize that his numbers deserve to be “bumped up” because of his late start on these shores.
Designated Hitter
Kudos to the voters for not penalizing the Big Hurt for playing a majority of his career at DH. The good news is Thomas’s selection should make it easier for voters to warm to Edgar. The bad news for Martinez – as good as his numbers are, they aren’t in the same class with Thomas, where they probably need to be to get past the DH stigma. Ortiz‘s stock is a mile high right now and how can you not love a guy with a smile as big as all outdoors. Still, he’s now 38, so not much time left to get 70 more home runs for the 500 milestone that he will probably need for serious consideration.
So, that’s how I see it. Now, it’s your turn.
Part of Jeter’s iconic status is, of course, tied to the fact that he is a shortstop – the leader – the Captain position.
But I can’t help but wonder what history will think of him, as defensive numbers become more and more part of the everyday conversation.
He’s sitting on 71.5 WAR.
That’s less than Jim Thome, who was a poor 1st baseman / DH.
If Jeter were moved to left field early in his career, would he be a 100 WAR guy?
Not unless he was a freakishly good defender in left. Remember he gets a huge position adjustment for playing short, which makes up more than half of his -rfield, while corner outfielders get penalized for position. Jeter’s dwar is roughly equivalent to an average defensive outfielder with a similarly long career. Consider another HOFer with a similar but slightly better bat: Tony Gwynn. He was a very good outfielder early, and then a poor one later. His career rField is 6, so overall performance right about average. But his rPos is -85, while Jeter’s is +130. That almost makes up for the giant 240 run difference in their rField numbers, such that Gwynn’s dWAR is -8.3 to Jeter’s -9.2 Advantage Gwynn on the defensive side, but only by 15 runs and less than 1 WAR.
So, switching Jeter to the outfield might have helped him a little, as long as he was at least average. But to improve his WAR a lot he would have had to be a *spectacular* corner guy, or a solid+ CF. to get to 100 WAR (or even 90 WAR) without better batting would have required him to be supernatural at a low value position, or way above average at a mid value position like 2B/3B/CF.
Remember, Jeter’s batting is phenomenal for a SS, but only average+ for a corner OF. The most likely move for him would probably be 3rd, and I can picture that improving his defensive numbers enough to be worth the positional hit, maybe get him to average-minus. He’d lose about 100 points of rPos, but he might realistically have posted average rfield numbers in the 0 to -10 range finishing with rfield around -50 to -100 and gaining a some WAR. But again, 100 WAR is out of the question, unless you think he could be at Scott Rolen/Adrian Beltre levels of 3B defensively.
The best plausible alternative history I can come up with would be to match, say, Chipper Jones defensive performance as almost average 3B (-23 rfield). That would get him into the low-mid 80 WAR range.
Thanks. That helps me understand the positional adjustments a bit better.
But, while I know that oWar + dWar do not = WAR…
Jeter’s 94 oWar
and 71 WAR sure make it look like his defense kills him.
But if I understand your explanation, Jeter would not have amassed 94 oWar if he was playing a more offense-expectant position.
exactly.
His oWAR would be in the mid 80s at 2B/3B/CF and in the low 70s at a corner position.
I’ve argued about this on a message board, and an e-mail I sent to Bill James led to a long analysis by him on his site, but I say, whether he deserves to or not, there’s no way Andruw Jones gets elected by the writers. His decline was too sudden, too early, and too swift—and you can add the ongoing logjam on top of that.
Perhaps not unlike another center-fielder, showing WAR thru age 29 and after.
– Andruw Jones: 57.9, 4.8
– Vada Pinson: 47.8, 6.4
But, just looking at oWAR, the edge swings to Pinson.
– Jones: 36,0, 3.1
– Pinson: 47.5, 7.3
Will be interesting to see if the voters are as aware of defensive metrics as we’d hope they are.
Agreed, the biggest problem for Jones is that most did not see him as the best defensive CF of all time, or even in the conversation. That’s what the defensive metrics say, and you have to mostly believe them to get HOF career value out of Andruw Jones.
I think there’s very little chance that the writers vote him in. He’s much more likely to drop off the ballot in year 1 or 2.
I don’t see Andruw getting in, either.
-His 400+ career HR total will be discounted because of the era he played in.
-His 51-HR season looks really steroid-suspicious. So does the sudden increase in his body size.
-never a max-effort guy, voters won’t like the way he got fat and lazy after signing with the Dodgers after his Braves career.
-the steep and sudden decline mentioned by Phil (it’s eerily similar to Dale Murphy’s decline).
-the backlog of players may be the same/even worse once Andruw gets on the ballot.
I’m not sure exactly how voters are going to view his defense. While he won’t be placed above Willie Mays, I can’t really think of who else would be considered #2 by the voters as far as centerfielders go. So maybe that alone might do it, but I doubt it.
I’ll defer to you on Jones’s bulk but the 51 HR at age 28, coming in a sequence of 36, 34, 35, 36, 29, 51, 41, 26, looks more like the peak season when everything just went right, rather than screaming steroids.
Jones, BTW, is one of 8 players with 10+ seasons of 25+ HR thru age 30 (Miggy joined the group last year). The other 7 (including Pujols) produced just 17 seasons of 25 HR age 31+, but Andruw is the only one who had no such seasons.
Let me rephrase, then: Andruw’s 51-HR season (combined with an increased bulkiness that year) will be looked at suspiciously by voters. Would I ding him for that? No.
Andruw is not done, y’know.
Just led a championship team in runs and ribbies.
I think that both Joe DiMaggio and Tris Speaker would get some traction with BBWAA voters as the 2nd greatest fielding center fielder of all time. Deserved or not, it’s certainly part of their reputations.
Richie Ashburn might get a little love as well,
I wonder if there is a generalization to be made that among guys with very strong peaks, those who have their peaks early in their careers but then have long periods of averageness thereafter (e.g. Andruw) fare worse in public perception and in HOF voting then guys who have a very strong peak late in their careers either because of abruptly shortened careers or because they were late bloomers. The late peak guys may simply leave a more indelible impression of greatness than early peak guys, even where the overall career achievement level is similar.
If you looked into that, I think it would absolutely turn out to be true. Paul Molitor and Craig Biggio (election imminent) come to mind as a couple of guys who didn’t hit their stride till their 30s—there must be more. (Not disputing that the great majority of players peak around 27.) On the other side, the Murphys, Mattinglys, Garciaparras, and Andruws. There are lots more of them, and I don’t think they ever break through in HOF voting. Last impressions, and just in general I think you’re expected to be productive for some or all of your 30s.
I talked about this last year and do believe it’s true, that’s it’s not really a good thing to peak too early.
Kenny Lofton is a good example. His three best years were his first three full seasons in the bigs, though to be fair they were his age 25-27 seasons. People forget the electrifying Lofton in his prime and instead remember the journeyman outfielder he became later in his career.
On the other hand, you get a guy like Dwight Evans. A terrific, almost Hall-worthy, player who never got the propers he deserved because his excellent years came in his 30s once his reputation had already been fixed as a solid, though not extraordinary player.
Basically it’s hard either way I think, peaking too late or too early. People have an implicit career-arc in their minds that it can be difficult to stray from.
Forgot about Evans. Also, I should have said “some or most of your 30s”—voters don’t expect you to be productive for all of your 30s.
One thing that your breakdown seems to re-enforce is that the talent distribution at positions is not necessarily equal. I know it just uses a single number as a measure but I still think it’s telling.
If you look at Alan Trammell sitting among the second tier of shortstops with a 70.3 while Carlos Beltran, Kenny Lofton, Manny Ramirez, Tim Raines, Craig Nettles and Scott Rolen are all in the top 10 with sub-70 totals and I didn’t even include catchers, DH’s or pitchers (where we are admittedly looking at top 40 but the numbers are still sub-70).
While some of it depends on where you put a player but I do think talent levels are deepest in right field, second base and shortstop while third base & catcher have less depth than other positions.
Supposedly, WAR adjusts for talent scarcity as Michael Sullivan explains above @4. But, the adjustment is arbitrary (and, thus, imperfect) with every player at a given position receiving the same adjustment.
Also, the analysis here adds together WAR accumulated at different positions. Thus, comparing players playing primarily or exclusively at a given position to others just playing at that position more frequently than any other is, to some degree, an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Doug:
Handicapping aside, your judgment here is based solely on WAR, but the institution is named The Hall of Fame. The trash heap approach to the benighted 25% in your charts above seems pretty arbitrary to me.
There are a few players within your hallowed 75% that I don’t think belong in the Hall, Hoyt Wilhelm and Ernie Lombardi, to name two, and several players beyond the pale who do. George Sisler and Dizzy Dean come to mind, dominant players who suffered illness, injury, or even death (Addie Joss) that precluded them from building their WAR in their declining years.
A few others deserve enshrinement for special achievement, like Hugh Duffy and Lou Brock, and some others, like Bill Terry and Frank Chance, were managers of note whose playing time was somewhat limited by leadership duties.
I realize that you were simply setting some boundaries for your main argument, but the statement, “so the voters haven’t done a terrible job,” makes it seem as if you’re drawing a line in the sand.
In most cases, all three of raw WAR, traditional conventional wisdom and what might be characterized as sophisticated, sabermetrically-informed evaluation, will all agree on who belongs in the Hall of Fame. It’s usually only at the relative margins that these three will disagree. For that reason, it can be useful to use raw WAR for purposes of organizing the discussion — it can help focus attention on categories that need more subtle evaluation, such as the guys with great peaks but short careers. The overlap of all methods with respect to most HOF guys also makes it possible to say, correctly, that the “voters haven’t done a terrible job” over the years.
nsb,
I wasn’t meaning to suggest that Tier III inductees are the trash heap, or that every Tier I and Tier II HOFer was an inspired selection. Sorry if it came across that way.
The notion that voters have done a reasonable job was simply to indicate that a declining proportion of Hall members as you go further down the WAR list is what would intuitively be expected. But, while that has occurred in the main, that hasn’t been the case for every position.
The WAR grouping was simply to organize players to provide a (one) basis for assessing the chances of players who will coming onto the ballot in coming years. WAR is only one piece of the puzzle but it may be useful for looking at players on the “bubble” so to speak, who are neither obviously qualified, nor obviously not qualified.
If there are a number of similar eligible players and also a number of similar recent players who haven’t made it (center field or right field are examples), then chances might not be very good for any particular player in that sort of bubble. On the other hand (left field, for example) if there are relatively few players eligible and few who have been recently snubbed, then circumstances may dictate that players in that sort of bubble may stand a better chance.
Doug –
You suggest Pettitte and Posada may receive a “Yankee boost” when they come on the ballot, but I don’t see much evidence for such a boost. For example –
Mattingly has one year left on the ballot but clearly isn’t going to make it; Bernie Williams lasted 2 years on the ballot, Graig Nettles lasted 4 years, Willie Randolph was one & done. Ron Guidry was on the ballot 9 years but never drew as much as 10% of the vote, Thurman Munson stayed on the full 15 but never cracked 10% after his first year. The recent “borderline” electees (e.g. Rice, Dawson) weren’t Yankees, and as far as the VC goes I’d take Joe Gordon over Bill Mazeroski any day. So it doesn’t look to me as though Yankees have received any particular favoritism in recent voting, either by the BBWAA or VC.
I totally agree, David. I studied the possibility of a pro-Yankee bias a few years ago here:
http://replacementlevel.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/is-there-regional-bias-in-hall-of-fame-selections/
Short answer: too many Yankees from the first half of the 20th century are in the Hall, but that’s due in large part to all the World Series they played in and won. The New York Giants are overrepresented as well, but they won a few titles and Frankie Frisch’s Veterans Committee dragged a bunch of them in. Since 1950, there’s no real regional bias except that voters seem to hate the Tigers.
Thanks David,
Actually, I think Mattingly is an excellent example of my point. He’s a player lacking HOF credentials and who never played on a championship team (or even appeared in the playoffs). Yet, here he is, still on the ballot after 14 years, instead of dropping off long ago as did his contemporaries like Will Clark, John Olerud, Keith Hernandez and Mark Grace (all of whom BTW out-WARred Mattingly).
So, why has Mattingly done that? Because he was the face of the franchise and that franchise was the Yankees. Of the others you mentioned, only Munson was, in my view,a “face of the franchise” guy (though Nettles was close). In Munson’s case, the perception, of course, was that his career was unfinished yet voters may have thus incorrectly neglected to evaluate his career as it was in registering their support. That said, he survived for 15 rounds. Of note is that that there were 3 other very comparable catchers (Fisk, Simmons, Tenace) who were exact contemporaries and two (Carter, Freehan) who were partial contemporaries. On the premise that no more than one or two players at a position in a given period are likely to make it, hard to argue that voters got it wrong with their choices.
Back to “face of the franchise”, I would argue that Jeter, Posada, Rivera and Pettitte are the face of the 1996-2009 Yankee “dynasty”, and that they (Posada and Pettitte) will get a longer look than comparable players at their positions (and also longer than if they had played elsewhere).
@18, 20, 21;
I agree that while there is indeed some “Yankee bias”, it is fairly weak and selectively applied. For every Yankees HOF candidate that’s benefited from it, there’s another that doesn’t seem to have benefitted very little, if at all.
For instance, Thurmon Munson (15.5%) and Joe Gordon (28.5%; finally selected by the Vets in 2009, 59 years after he retired) stayed on the ballot for all 15 years with decent %’s – but so did far less qualified candidates Roger Maris (32.4%) and Don Larsen (12.1%). Munson and Gordon don’t seem to have benefited much from ‘Yankees bias’.
Also, while Mattingly has stuck on the ballot 14 years, his team mates Willie Randolph (one-and-done!, 1.1%) and Ron Guidry (9 yrs, peak of 8.8%) never got much support.
Just a small point of clarification, Doug: You write “He [Mattingly] is a player lacking HOF credentials and who never played on a championship team (or even appeared in the playoffs).”
Mattingly finished his Yankee career with a playoff appearance in 1995. (Quite a brilliant one actually, ops 1.148.)
My sense is that Mattingly is the exception, not the rule for Yankee players’ relationship to the Hall. I thoroughly agree that he has benefited from his limelight exposure in New York. But I don’t think that many others have. If Pettitte garners substantial support then that will definitely be due to being a Yankee (my hunch is that he won’t get much support thought). If Posada does, well, I find that kind of justifiable, since he’s one of the greatest hitting catchers of all time. He certainly rates pretty high among catchers in the history of the game (I’m not saying he belongs in the Hall mind you, just that it’s not crazy for him to be part of the discussion).
@24, You bring up Maris and Larsen as guys who might have benefited from their association to the Yankees. My sense is that their undue distinction among HoF voters has nothing whatsoever to do with being Yankees, but exclusively to the blinding nature of a single great accomplishment. Had those guys played for the KCA I think they would have gotten the same amount of votes provided they both had ended up a)breaking Ruth’s HR record and b)throwing a perfect game in the WS.
Thanks for the correction, paget.
I should have remembered the LDS began in ’95 since I attended the games in Seattle.
228/paget,
I was kind of hoping that no one would notice my gap in logic concerning Maris and Larsen’s 15-year rides on the HOF ballot. Johnny Vander Meer also had a full 15-year run, despite his losing record – we all know why…
Pettitte and Posada’s best asset is the volume of their post season career. You can say “because they were Yankees” if you want, but you’re talking about two players with large post season resumes, particularly in the case of Pettitte.
I think the HOF vote is much more emotional than statistical. Mattingly felt like a HOFer to many people so he’s getting some votes. I think it shows one area where statistics are creeping in that he doesn’t have more support than he does. Puckett had a wider peak but still was under qualified and sailed in 82.1% first year. To that end, I think we have a clearer distinction of HOF and not HOF:
IN: Schilling, Johnson, Martinez, Smoltz, Rivera, Pujols, Thome, Biggio, Chipper, Jeter, Jr, Ichiro
Bubble: Mussina, Halladay, Pettitte, Raines, Walker, Guerrero, Martinez
Out: Lee Smith, McGriff, Mattingly, Helton, Kent, Rolen, Andruw, Abreu, Edmonds, Damon
Steroids suspicion section!
In: Piazza
Bubble: Rodriguez, Bonds, Clemens, Bagwell
Out: Sheffield, Palmero, McGuire, Arod, Manny, Sosa
I didn’t think it was fair to comment on Ortiz, Beltran, Hunter, Beltre, Cabrera, Utley, Mauer, Hudson, Sabathia, or Santana
Mosc..while I agree with most of your HOF predictions, I think you missed the mark with Halladay. 7 time top 5 in Cy Young vote (including 6 straight years) including 2 time winner makes him at least as strong a candidate as Schilling if not stronger.
2749.1 IP is less than Pedro. I think if anything pushes Halladay over the top it’ll be a playoff no hitter.
Doug,
I appreciate the tremendous amount of work you put into this. However, I have two issues:
1) PRESENTATION: It might’ve been better to present this separately by position, with several posts a week over a month or more. This is A LOT to take in all at once.
2) METHODOLOGY: I would’ve used Jay Jaffe’s JAWS HOF evaluation system (as listed on B-R), as that balances peak WAR equally against career WAR. This would make a better case for some of those above deemed “not worthy”, as ns b points out in #15 above. For instance, besides George Sisler and maybe Dizzy Dean, I’d include in my personal HOF:
– Chance, Terry, Jennings (including their substantial contributions as managers on their resume)
– Maranville and Maz (considered the best defensively at their position when they retired0
– Lary Doby, for his pioneering role in breaking the AL color line (also, that he probably lost at least a couple years to the color line)
LA: While you’re t it why not include Mattingly along with Sisler. Here’s a comment of mine from last February.
There is a parallel between Mattingly and Sisler in that they both suffered debilitating medical problems in the middle of their careers. In his first 8 seasons Mattingly had an OPS+ of 144 but fell to 105 in the 6 seasons subsequent to his back injury. Sisler had an OPS+ of 155 for his first 8 seasons but fell to just 97 for the 7 seasons subsequent to his sinus/eye problems.
@23/Richard,
Good comparison between Sisler and Mattingly. However, I think Sisler is over the HOF bar, while Mattingly is under it.
Several reasons:
1) PEAK: Sisler’s peak (1916-1922)is both longer than Mattingly’s (1984-89), and better. Mattingly was talked about as ‘best player in MLB” for a short time, in 1985-86. Sisler in 1920-22 was often considered ‘best player in MLB besides Ruth’.
2) Both were oustanding defensively, but Sisler could also steal bases.
3) Sisler had a longer career than Mattingly
4) Sisler was a player-manager for three years
This is where JAWS comes in – the differences may seem small, but JAWS amplifies them: Sisler is ranked 15th and Mattingly 35th amonst first baseman by JAWS. This is the difference between ‘credible HOF candidate’, and ‘not quite a credible HOF candidate’.
There’s also a good comparison between Sisler and Ernie Banks, in that Banks is a no-doubt HOFer as a shortstop, but merely a decent-to-good player after moving to first in 1962.
Evaluating two drastically difference halves of one career, as one whole, is difficult.
Thanks for the feedback, Lawrence.
Evidently, the tiering approach rubbed some of you the wrong way. Sorry about that. No slight was intended to players on the wrong side of tier boundaries.
Agree that WAR may not be the ideal evaluator, but it is probably the best one available in Play Index, which I really had to use to pull all of the data together (even using P-I, it was difficult reconciling the numbers because of players who split their careers over multiple positions, and the need to fine tune the P-I queries to pick up the “right” players without inadvertently picking up some “wrong” players).
But, I’ll give JAWS a look for another post at some point.
I liked the way the information was organized and presented; I found it interesting to see how the players ranked 11-25 have done in the voting.
@27/Doug,
I’m glad you took my comments in #27 in the spirit in which they were offered.
I didn’t consider that WAR would be much more user-friendly in the P-I index than JAWS.
I don’t have a problem with your ‘tiering’ approach. If it’s a binary process, some guys are gonna be ‘in’, some guys are gonna be ‘out’, and a few are gonna be right on the borderline.
I don’t think the one-number WAR/JAWS approach should always be the final word. For instance, looking at catchers, I’d rate Freehan as a much better better HOF candidate than Tenace, even though Tenace has a slight edge in both WAR and JAWS.
Doug,
Great presentation here. I feel very strongly that there are not enough Catcher’s in the Hall of Fame. It is the most demanding position of all. I have great respect for what these players go through. The 70’s were truly the Golden Age of catcher’s. Munson, Simmons and Freehan should all be in there. I always felt that Munson was one of the best. Munson’s career caught stealing percentage was an outstanding 44%! He is percentage points ahead of Bench in that regard – that is saying something. I also feel that it is alright for a catcher to have a shorter career. He totally dominated in postseason play as well. Check his career OPS for postseason play vs. all of the others. I also agree with the comment regarding apples to oranges – when I see Tenace being ranked ahead of Munson it gets my hair up. Munson led the league in games caught 3 times, runner up once. Led in Assists 3 times, runner up 4 times. Led in Double plays twice, runner up twice. Led in caught stealing percentage 2 times, runner up once. Led in fielding percentage once. Putouts – runner up once. Runners caught stealing – runner up once.
Tenace – Led league in fielding percentage once. Runner up caught stealing percentage once. Runner up – Double plays once.
Munson was a workhorse catcher and in his 10 year career he excelled at so many parts of the game and especially when it mattered most. The writers most definitely did not evaluate his career properly and time has made his case stronger. I too believe that JAWS is the best way to go about evaluating players, but that is just part of the equation.
Great work Doug.
Thanks for your kind words, tuna.
Glad you liked it.
I like the current HoF voting process. I think they (most writers) deserve credit for the low totals of Bonds and Clemens. When it’s all said and done 3 guys deserving of election on the first ballot got in and Biggio almost did. The silly “moralizing” complaints from mostly the SABRmeter/newstat folks is silly.
I don’t know Timmy, I have always enjoyed looking at the traditional numbers, Home runs, runs, hits, rbi’s , etc….but I think the SABR/newstat “folks” are shedding a lot of light on other important factors. OBP, peak and such. I prefer to use both components in evaluating a players career. I think they are wise to use peak years the way that they do. However…when Tenace gets ranked at catcher ahead of Munson….that is a problem…Tenace only had 2 seasons where he caught more than 100 games….so the new stat folks are doing a fine job of things and still are working out the kinks. The writers have not done a great job…Blyleven 15 years? Rice gets in on the 15th year! Puckett sails right in and Biggio with 3000 plus hits doesn’t make the grade….
Ron Santo!! They are not doing their job.
Timmy Pea,
Welcome back!
HOF voters are morons and their votes are hard to predict.
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Omar Vizquel makes the hall of fame.
You wrote that Manny will have to wait…..um yeah he’s gonna go the same way Palmeiro did. He won’t have to wait long to be off the ballot.
The HOF voting process is a complete joke. The guys who are in and the guys who aren’t is hilarious. Glavine is first ballot but Mussina and Schilling aren’t even close when they were both better pitchers? Whitaker off the ballot immediately when he was more valuable than Alomar or Jeter who are first ballot? Biggio and Bagwell waiting around?
Mussina baffled me by retiring after a 20 win season with 270 wins. He should’ve known the morons needed him to hang on and get 300 wins, then he’d be first ballot. Possibly he didn’t care.
It’s just silly. The mecca of America’s national sport and it’s voted on by a bunch of homers that only know how to recognize round numbers. What a shame.
Alomar was second-ballot. But, yeah, I mostly agree with you. Clearly the voters are *very* heavily influenced by irrelevant factors, such as how much they like a player as a dude (Schilling and Killebrew on the ends of that scale), desire to micromanage when a player gets in (Alomar got 72% his first year and like 91% his second), and desire to give “courtesy votes” to players they liked in absolutely stacked years. And I won’t even touch the subject of players the voters (often baselessly) decide were “cheaters.”
Not that I’m suggesting a singleminded “top percentage of WAR” Hall of Fame either. I don’t really desire to have the Hall be that mechanistic. Takes all the fun out of arguing about it, after all. 🙂
@47 I agree, the voters are influenced a great deal on how much they like a dude…its ridiculous. At first the new statistical measures bothered me but I have given WAR and such a chance and there is clear value to it. Combining the old and the new is the best way to go in my opinion. Pretending that the new measures have no baring is being blind. I think the Hall could be MUCH, MUCH better…if it was up to me at least 20 new players would be in tomorrow….sadly this will not happen…because then they would have to admit their mistakes….
Also, the voters could easily miss Beltre if he doesn’t get to 3000 hits. He could just go the way Whitaker went even if he has 100 WAR. Don’t underestimate how dumb they are. Good thing for him his career started so early, so he’ll get in based on his counting stats even though that’s nothing to do with why he should be in.
I have no idea what the voters will do with Andruw Jones.
Posada and Pettite might be first ballot don’t be surprised if they are.
I doubt Posada will make the Hall of Fame, or even come particularly close; the notion that he might make it first ballot seems a little far-fetched. I would guess that Pettitte will draw substantial support and hang around the ballot for a long while, and might even get in one day, but again I doubt he’ll be a first ballot selection.
I think Posada will hang around for a while, but not make it.
– oWAR (supposedly, Posada’s trump card) – better than 4 of 12 HOFers, but they are Ferrell, Schalk, Bresnahan and Campy. Only 5th among retired non-HOFers, but two of those ahead (Pudge, Piazza) will make it.
– OPS+ – ahead of only 4 HOFers but two of those are Fisk and Carter, the most recent inductees. Only 6th among retired non-HOFers, but well ahead of Pudge.
– dWAR (Posada’s Achilles heel) – ahead of zero HOFers (but not far behind several). 127th among retired non-HOFers (min. 3000 PAs)
Just don’t see the whole package as making the grade.
Not to suggest that Posada is the equal of Piazza on offense but just curious as to where Piazza sits on the dWAR list. I bet it’s not that high on the list. Posada was an offensive force though and very durable – and 5 Championships….and ranking ahead of Fisk and Carter on any list is impressive.
I have a suspicion you’re underrating how much the steroid witch hunt is going to hurt players who fall under its cloud. A-Rod — even if Bud doesn’t decide to hit him with the ban stick — may very well be a lost cause at this point. Pudge, Piazza, Manny, Sheffield, Ortiz, and many many others are going to be looking at vote totals a lot lower than their numbers would indicate.