Screensnark Forums

Full Version: MLB thread
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
And for a full ballot I would say for the 1st timers:

Randy Johnson
Pedro Martinez
John Smoltz
Gary Sheffield

And for people who've been listed before:

Mike Piazza
Jeff Bagwell
Tim Raines
Roger Clemens
Barry Bonds
Alan Trammell

People I would also vote for: McGwire, Sosa, E. Martinez, McGriff

People I'm on the fence about: Schilling (are his numbers really that good), Mussina, Giles (he probably, most definitely was on steroids, but does that matter? If I vote for Clemens and McGwire and Bonds aren't I obligated to also vote for Giles?)

People I would not vote for because the bar at 2B is incredibly high: Craig Biggio and Jeff Kent
Biggio is a HOFer. Not strong power numbers but the man could hit
(11-24-2014 06:57 PM)Rover Wrote: [ -> ]People I'm on the fence about: Schilling (are his numbers really that good),

A 3.46 ERA (127 ERA+) for 3200 innings is a LITTLE borderline, but pretty darn HoFish. Then you add in his legendarily good tools behind those numbers (still 21st all time in career K/9, 2nd all time in K/BB). For those who like "era" numbers, he's 5th in career WAR amongst starters from 1990-2014 (behind RJ, Maddux, Clemens, and narrowly Pedro). Higher than Smoltz, Halladay, and Glavine. And, as you can see from the table I posted, his JAWS score (an arbitrary number I like that gives particular credit for peak years) is 64.5 against an average currently in the HoF of 61.8 (so he'd be an above average HoFer, if only a bit).

Quote:Mussina,

Really the same argument as for Schilling, just without the sexy 2001 and 2004 playoff moments. Mussina is 6th just behind Schilling in 1990-2014 WAR, also narrowly ahead of the SP average in JAWS (63.8 for him), and also great control (17th all time K/BB).

Quote:Giles (he probably, most definitely was on steroids, but does that matter? If I vote for Clemens and McGwire and Bonds aren't I obligated to also vote for Giles?)

I always like Brian Giles. But the dude only played for 7800 PA. While good, his numbers aren't good enough (IMO) to justify a Sandy Koufax/Ralph Kiner-style "short but incredible" career candidacy. 44.1 JAWS against a 58.1 positional average in the HoF.

Quote:People I would not vote for because the bar at 2B is incredibly high: Craig Biggio and Jeff Kent

Biggio deserves it. Kent is... Interesting but no. That batting line is pretty, but the career value just isn't there.
Quote:A 3.46 ERA (127 ERA+) for 3200 innings is a LITTLE borderline, but pretty darn HoFish.
That's kind of where I'm at with Schilling. I don't think he's as good as people remember him, but I think his numbers are there, but I'd also string him out for a few years, if I'm limited to 10 votes per year.

Quote:Really the same argument as for Schilling, just without the sexy 2001 and 2004 playoff moments.

I think I'd vote for him, but he'd have to wait as long as you can only vote for 10.

Quote:I always like Brian Giles. But the dude only played for 7800 PA.

He had an (essentially) 11 year career that was nothing short of excellent. Maybe if he'd been healthy for the first 4 years it could have been a 15 year career. Sure, his power numbers declined for the same reasons they magically appeared, but he was still very good (great?). Like, if the 2015 Detroit Tigers announced they'd signed a 35 year old Brian Giles to play LF and bat 2nd for the next 3 years, I'd be really happy.

Although, I do kind of agree that when you consider his position he's probably a little bit short of a HoF OFer

Quote:Biggio deserves it. Kent is... Interesting but no. That batting line is pretty, but the career value just isn't there.

They both deserve it, but I would never vote for a 2B or SS as a petty protest.
(11-24-2014 09:15 PM)Rover Wrote: [ -> ]t, but I would never vote for a 2B or SS as a petty protest.
Hi Rover! How would you like to become a card-carrying member of the Baseball Writers Association of America?
(11-24-2014 06:20 PM)Stax Wrote: [ -> ]Those Hanley and Panda deals aren't awful. I wouldn't want to commit that long to Hanley, but it buys them a right now window for a guy who's totally worth it when healthy. And Panda is young yet, and the deal is only 5 years...

Post this on Facebook, but the 2015 HoF ballot is out:

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-base...t-revealed
http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2015.shtml

Who ya got? My ballot:

- Jeff Bagwell
- Barry Bonds
- Roger Clemens
- Randy Johnson
- Pedro Martinez
- Mark McGwire
- Mike Mussina
- Mike Piazza
- Curt Schilling
- John Smoltz
And then I would complain wildly about being limited to 10 votes (coupled with the fact that candidates now only get 10 years of eligibility rather than 15). I'd also EASILY vote for Biggio, Tim Raines, and Alan Trammell along with strong consideration for Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Larry Walker, Gary Sheffield, and Sammy Sosa (E-Mart and McGriff being the most likely of those for me).
I would vote for every one of the players mentioned except for Trammell and Walker. I've just never understood Trammell's candidacy, and I'm old enough to remember him playing. But this is now the problem were the writers have arbitrarily left out players that deserve to be in. The HOF is essentially a joke.
(11-24-2014 10:50 PM)Genius Wrote: [ -> ]I would vote for every one of the players mentioned except for Trammell and Walker. I've just never understood Trammell's candidacy, and I'm old enough to remember him playing.

Derek Jeter: .310/.377/.440 (115 OPS+) over 12602 PA
Alan Trammell: .285/.352/.415 (110 OPS+) over 9376 PA

Jeter's raw line looks more impressive, but that gap lessens once you remember their respective eras of play (Jeter centered on the era of big offense, Trammell only touching it at the end). Trammell's power in-prime is particularly impressive once you realize it was pre-Ripken/Jeter/ARod/Nomar really remaking SS as a power position and (largely) pre-steroids. And of course in the other direction Jeter did play an extra 3300 PA, which does matter immensely.

Then (despite Jeter's 5 GG > Trammell's 4) Jeter was of course a miserable defensive SS while Alan Trammell was a very very good one (28th all time in FanGraphs overall Defense metric at short).

The end result is two reasonably close players in terms of overall value. FanGraphs gives Jeter a bigger edge in WAR thanks to that playing time (73.5 to 63.7) while B-Ref has them quite close (71.8 to 70.4).

And that's career value (where Jeter and his 3300 extra PA obviously leads). Jeter's best years by OPS+ are 153, 132, 128 vs. Trammell's 155 and then 3x years of 138 OPS+. And that's offense, which is where Jeter is supposed to lead. Again taking JAWS, B-Ref has them at a dead heat essentially (57 for Jeter vs. 57.5 for Trammell). By FanGraphs, their respective best 7 years of WAR (so taking into account defense, but using the WAR method that likes Trammell less) are:

Jeter: 7.4, 6.8, 6.2, 6.1, 5.5, 4.9, 4.6 (41.5)
Trammell: 7.7, 6.9, 6.2, 5.7, 5.6, 5.3, 4.3 (41.7)

Derek Jeter is unironically discussed as a potential candidate to be the first ever unanimous Hall of Fame selection. Yes, Jeter has another seasons' worth of PA (734) in October and November at a high level along with some nice jewelry (thanks somewhat due to his own play and also in large part to his teams). But while their methods of creating value were different (Jeter a high-average wizard who could survive defensively just enough to justify staying at SS, Trammell a defensive wizard with a plus bat given his position but was hardly a stud), their actual respective values to their teams were quite close.

Really what Jeter did that Trammell didn't was hang on and provide some value at the back end of his career. 13.4 FanGraphs WAR from age 35 on (6.8 of which was in his age-35 year) vs. 2.8 for Trammell (actually had 3.6 in his age-35 season but his awful final season clawed some of it back). And I have a hard time accepting that the gap between an all-time legend (like Jeter) and a doesn't-deserve-the-Hall'er (as some feel about Trammell) exists purely thanks to his being slightly better in his hanger-on years. I mean heck, Jeter lasted maybe 2 years longer in terms of real valuable years, but Trammell started ~2 years earlier (first full year at 20 vs. 22 for Jeter).

Quote: But this is now the problem were the writers have arbitrarily left out players that deserve to be in. The HOF is essentially a joke.

Nah. It's still by far the best of the sports HoFs. Yes it has individual player problems, and it's resolution of the PED issue will leave one big and easy-to-describe gash in its side (along with the smaller Shoeless Joe/Pete Rose one), but in general it does a decent enough job of measuring players.

Dump a few of the really obvious, political, and largely early Veteran's Committee picks and the Hall is pretty spot on.
Larkin: .298/.369/.451 OPS+122 135 HR, 254 2B, 5618 PA
Trammell: .289/.354/.436 OPS+115 116 HR, 231 2B, 4748 PA

That's the comparison over the 11 years that Larkin and Trammell's careers overlapped. So the first 11 years for Larkin vs. the last 11 for Trammell, including his awful 4 of 5 to end his career.

Are those extra 900 PAs valuable? Yes. Is it clear that Larkin is the no questions asked much better offensive slugger that gets into the HoF without any thought?
(11-24-2014 10:38 PM)Genius Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-24-2014 09:15 PM)Rover Wrote: [ -> ]t, but I would never vote for a 2B or SS as a petty protest.
Hi Rover! How would you like to become a card-carrying member of the Baseball Writers Association of America?

I know.

That's why I'm perfectly fine with carrying my voting grudges. If the people that actually vote can do it, so can I. But at least I'll fairly consider everybody that used steroids.
Reference URL's