alex02
Hall of Merit Voter
Posts: 39
|
Post by alex02 on Feb 10, 2024 11:04:22 GMT -8
88. Don Newcombe (145.7) Gave him 2.6/4.2 bWAR/fWAR for '52 and '53, but still not that close. Very little peak value, especially in bWAR. fWAR likes him significantly better, but it's not enough. Haven't given him any credit for his age 18 and 19 NgL seasons, but I suppose he might deserve some kind of minor league credit. This was also my view of Newcombe until recently, but you might want to check out his MLEs, which give him credit not only for those two NgL seasons but also for the three seasons he spent in the Dodgers' minor-league system when he was almost certainly good enough to be pitching in the majors. I know you mentioned you're hesitant to give out minor-league credit, but if there were ever a time to, that would be it. Certainly one of the more complicated cases.
|
|
|
Post by Jaack on Feb 10, 2024 11:54:59 GMT -8
I haven't, no. Perhaps I should, but then I run into the problem of how. Just multiplying, say, his '94 WAR values by 1.4 (the product of 162/the 115 games the Royals played that year) is certainly the simplest method, but without any sort of regression for the smaller sample size, I'm not sure it's the correct one. For a somewhat similar case, for Urban Shocker I did just double his 1918 WAR values, but now I'm wondering if that isn't a mistake. Looking at Ned Williamson got me thinking along those lines, for shorter seasons in general, though it would apply to strike seasons too, but I haven't come to any conclusion. I mean, at the extreme end I don't give the guys who played in 154 game seasons any extra credit, but it could make a difference in some very close cases. There's probably lots of discussions about this on the old site, but I'm not sure where to look. I am open to suggestions though. I think that a straight multiplier is actually pretty justifiable for league wide shortened seasons (it gets trickier when you bring in military/minor league/segregation credit). I consider the pennants in 1995 and 1996 to be equivalent in value. The one in 1995 required fewer wins and thus fewer runs, making the wins and runs in that season have more value than those produced in 1996. So, I just apply the straight multiplier. Admittedly, I don't do it all the way back through the earliest seasons (those seasons are just to unwieldly and require a lot of care to get right in my opinion), but philosophically it's the best approach for my system. But that is, in large part, because my system uses the 'season' as a base unit of measurement - I don't have a specific 'career' element or anything like that. Of course, the other way to view missed time due to strikes is that it was a playing opportunity unfairly denied to a player, making it similar to military/minor league/segregation credit. You have a lot more nuance in making your adjustment (you are projecting what they would have done in the missing time). But it also leads to some strange questions. If a player tears his ACL 2 games before the season is shortened by a strike, does he get credit for the strike? My method gives it to him - those 80 games were more valuable than 80 games of an unshortened season. But a projection based approach probably wouldn't - he wasn't unfairly denied anything since he couldn't have played in those games regardless.
|
|
kcgard2
Hall of Merit Voter
Posts: 98
|
Post by kcgard2 on Feb 10, 2024 12:00:28 GMT -8
88. Don Newcombe (145.7) Gave him 2.6/4.2 bWAR/fWAR for '52 and '53, but still not that close. Very little peak value, especially in bWAR. fWAR likes him significantly better, but it's not enough. Haven't given him any credit for his age 18 and 19 NgL seasons, but I suppose he might deserve some kind of minor league credit. This was also my view of Newcomeb until recently, but you might want to check out his MLEs, which give him credit not only for those two NgL seasons but also for the three seasons he spent in the Dodgers' minor-league system when he was almost certainly good enough to be pitching in the majors. I know you mentioned you're hesitant to give out minor-league credit, but if there were ever a time to, that would be it. Certainly one of the more complicated cases. I agree with not giving Newcombe credit for age 18 and 19 seasons. I do give him credit for ages 20-22 in the minors, ages 26 and 27 for war service, and extra credit for batting...and even with all those he is not even close to my ballot.
|
|
ericj
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by ericj on Feb 10, 2024 12:30:24 GMT -8
I haven't, no. Perhaps I should, but then I run into the problem of how. Just multiplying, say, his '94 WAR values by 1.4 (the product of 162/the 115 games the Royals played that year) is certainly the simplest method, but without any sort of regression for the smaller sample size, I'm not sure it's the correct one. For a somewhat similar case, for Urban Shocker I did just double his 1918 WAR values, but now I'm wondering if that isn't a mistake. Looking at Ned Williamson got me thinking along those lines, for shorter seasons in general, though it would apply to strike seasons too, but I haven't come to any conclusion. I mean, at the extreme end I don't give the guys who played in 154 game seasons any extra credit, but it could make a difference in some very close cases. There's probably lots of discussions about this on the old site, but I'm not sure where to look. I am open to suggestions though. I think that a straight multiplier is actually pretty justifiable for league wide shortened seasons (it gets trickier when you bring in military/minor league/segregation credit). I consider the pennants in 1995 and 1996 to be equivalent in value. The one in 1995 required fewer wins and thus fewer runs, making the wins and runs in that season have more value than those produced in 1996. So, I just apply the straight multiplier. Admittedly, I don't do it all the way back through the earliest seasons (those seasons are just to unwieldly and require a lot of care to get right in my opinion), but philosophically it's the best approach for my system. But that is, in large part, because my system uses the 'season' as a base unit of measurement - I don't have a specific 'career' element or anything like that. Of course, the other way to view missed time due to strikes is that it was a playing opportunity unfairly denied to a player, making it similar to military/minor league/segregation credit. You have a lot more nuance in making your adjustment (you are projecting what they would have done in the missing time). But it also leads to some strange questions. If a player tears his ACL 2 games before the season is shortened by a strike, does he get credit for the strike? My method gives it to him - those 80 games were more valuable than 80 games of an unshortened season. But a projection based approach probably wouldn't - he wasn't unfairly denied anything since he couldn't have played in those games regardless. I did some work on schedule adjustments a while back, which of course like so much else around here was primarily posted on BTF. The adjustment I settled on was an attempt to measure how much more valuable a win was in a shorter season by looking at the standard deviation of winning percentage across various game samples within the same year (the W% standard deviation is higher in smaller samples so the straight-line WAR adjustment doesn't accurately capture pennant impact). Not sure how well I can compose the resulting formula here, but here's my best shot at it. This is the pro-rating ratio from an N-game season to a 162-game season (you can probably get away with rounding the constants a bit): 11.0021/sqrt(.25*N + .00306916*N^2) Adjustment factors for some relevant season lengths: 60 games (2020): 2.16 144 games (1995): 1.10 114 games (1994, roughly): 1.33 107 games (1981, roughly): 1.40 154 games (duh): 1.04 140 games (1919, and some older years): 1.13 127 games (1918, roughly): 1.22
|
|
|
Post by bleedthefreak on Feb 10, 2024 12:48:55 GMT -8
Here is my preliminary ballot. It reflects an effort to consider a player's era more systematically than I did in 2023, with higher preference given to players from less-represented periods. 12. Heavy Johnson - I'm surprised he doesn't have more supporters. Based on the available stats, he looks to have been a great, possibly legendary, hitter. 14. Sal Bando Documented playing time and current representation of players from his era drives caution, but is per game rates look stellar.
|
|
|
Post by bleedthefreak on Feb 10, 2024 13:03:55 GMT -8
@chris Cobb, you mentioned Ted Strong as a borderline HOF guy. Can you elaborate on his case, as I know less about him than other NGL candidates.
|
|
|
Post by bleedthefreak on Feb 10, 2024 13:11:46 GMT -8
@discussion of 1950s candidates, is it crazy to consider Luke Easter one? He mashed from age 34-43 confirmed in large sample sizes in AL and AA, and with his early career being shrouded in mystery to a degree, maybe he's a late bloomer and 50s guy?
|
|
alex02
Hall of Merit Voter
Posts: 39
|
Post by alex02 on Feb 10, 2024 13:40:15 GMT -8
This was also my view of Newcomeb until recently, but you might want to check out his MLEs, which give him credit not only for those two NgL seasons but also for the three seasons he spent in the Dodgers' minor-league system when he was almost certainly good enough to be pitching in the majors. I know you mentioned you're hesitant to give out minor-league credit, but if there were ever a time to, that would be it. Certainly one of the more complicated cases. I agree with not giving Newcombe credit for age 18 and 19 seasons. I do give him credit for ages 20-22 in the minors, ages 26 and 27 for war service, and extra credit for batting...and even with all those he is not even close to my ballot. I'm surprised by that! I'd think 38.7 WAR on b-ref, 36.9 on FanGraphs, plus five likely prime-ish seasons (admittedly hard to estimate) would have him at least in the neighborhood, even before any sort of era adjustment. But I'm not surprised there's a lot of divergence in how to handle him given how many moving parts there are to his candidacy and how much what-if analysis is requiring.
|
|
|
Post by chriscobb on Feb 10, 2024 13:42:33 GMT -8
"@discussion of 1950s candidates, is it crazy to consider Luke Easter one? He mashed from age 34-43 confirmed in large sample sizes in AL and AA, and with his early career being shrouded in mystery to a degree, maybe he's a late bloomer and 50s guy?"
Given the contraction-type circumstances at work in the 1950s, I don't think it's crazy to consider Luke Easter as a 1950s guy. I have never done a serious work-up of him. Frankly, I've been a bit put off over the years by the tendency of projections for Easter's career to run in extravagant and implausible directions, mainly by giving him credit for about a decade of value for the years in which he might have played in organized baseball, but didn't. It's also my sense that a lot of the credit being projected for minor-league play by older Negro-League stars has been overly optimistic.
I have not opinion as to whether he was a late bloomer, was overlooked because the NeL didn't appropriately value power-hitting, was overlooked because the Negro Leagues lacked the resources to look hard for talent, or just didn't become intent on pursuing a baseball career until his 30s due to personal, family, or financial factors.
All that said, now that I've done work on evaluating the 1950s minor-league play of players like Clarkson, Brown, and Jethroe, I am pretty convinced that these players would have been competitive in the majors past age 35 if they had been given a real opportunity, and so I think it is quite possible that Easter might have several seasons of post-ML credit to add to his case. Still, the fact that his Negro-League career began in 1947 (there might be a case for a year or two of pre-NeL MLE credit), Easter is not going to have much more than a decade's worth of playing time. Still, Al Rosen is close in the 1950s with a very foreshortened, peak-heavy career, so I am not ruling out Easter out of hand.
But that's only to say that I think it would be quite appropriate to take a look, not that I have a clear expectation that it would lead to a serious case, but that given the context, Easter should get a close look.
|
|
|
Post by chriscobb on Feb 10, 2024 14:33:52 GMT -8
"@chris Cobb, you mentioned Ted Strong as a borderline HOF guy. Can you elaborate on his case, as I know less about him than other NGL candidates."
Here's a brief view of Strong.
He was one of the top plqyers in the NAL from its inception until he was drafted into WW2. He was in Mexico for all of 1940 and the first part of 1941: he didn't perform as well there as in the Negro Leagues. I have him as a 5-7 WAR/year player in the NAL from 1938-42. He then had 3 years of military service, came back with a very good (4.5 WAR) year in 1946. For some reason, his play collapsed to below rep level in 47. In 48 he was back to a 5.0/162 MEL rate, but played only half the season, and then was done in baseball after his age 31 season. I haven't found indications that he continued to play in the Negro Leagues after 1948 or that he played any independent or minor league ball. I don't know why his career ended then, but it did. If he had played 3-4 more years as an average player, he'd be a solid HoM candidate. He was an outstanding all-around athlete who also played basketball professionally with the Harlem Globetrotters for several seasons.
Some NeL statistical highlights:
In 1938, he led the NAL with .400 batting average and 250 OPS+ In 1942, he led the NAL with a .364 batting average and a 213 OPS+
These are peak numbers similar to what Monte Irvin, Larry Doby, and Willard Brown put up in their best NeL seasons.
As things stand, my MLEs have him at 38.0 career MLE WAR, with 11.7 MLE credit for his 43-45 seasons in the military, which puts him at 49.7 WAR in a short career with a strong, fully documented early peak in 1938-42. He shakes out in my system very close but a little ahead of Pesky, Rizzuto, and Clarkson.
Dr. Chaleeko's MLEs project Strong quite a bit lower than I do--I am not sure why, but I suspect that (1) his standard career-shaping measures squish Strong's early peak and (2) his way of handling competition adjustments docks the NAL vs. the NNL more than mine does. An example: Strong was clearly the best hitter in the NAL in 1938 and projects to have been an outstanding major-league hitter. He was 21 that season. My system projects him with full major-league credit for the season, resulting in a year in which he amassed 7.5 WAR. Dr. C has Strong appearing in only 96 games and earning 3.0 WAR. Dr. C projects Strong for only 29 MLE WAR, which seems far too low to me. He also gives Strong credit for seasons in 1949-51: I don't know if that's just to model a standard decline or if he is aware that Strong was playing baseball somewhere in those seasons.
FWIW, Bill James ranked Strong as the #3 rightfielder in NeL history in the NBJHBA. Like Monte Irvin, Strong actually began as an infielder, playing SS, 3B, and 1B before switching to right field in the middle of 1941.
Overall, I certainly am not pushing for Ted Strong as the next George Scales! My assessment is that he falls a little short, and that if we elect any more NeL position players, the two most meritorious are Hurley McNair and Heavy Johnson. But Strong was an outstanding player who compares well with the other players in the upper part of the 1940s backlog. I think he may have been overlooked because of the poor fit between the shape of his career and the projection structure of Dr. Chaleeko's MLEs. Of course, one might say that, to the contrary, Dr. C's system protects against an unrealistically high evaluation of Strong. My projection approach is to give credit in whatever amount was earned in documented NeL playing time, regardless of the typical shape of major-league careers, so sometimes that leads to a quite different view of a player.
|
|
|
Post by Jaack on Feb 10, 2024 14:43:55 GMT -8
I did some work on schedule adjustments a while back, which of course like so much else around here was primarily posted on BTF. The adjustment I settled on was an attempt to measure how much more valuable a win was in a shorter season by looking at the standard deviation of winning percentage across various game samples within the same year (the W% standard deviation is higher in smaller samples so the straight-line WAR adjustment doesn't accurately capture pennant impact). Not sure how well I can compose the resulting formula here, but here's my best shot at it. This is the pro-rating ratio from an N-game season to a 162-game season (you can probably get away with rounding the constants a bit): 11.0021/sqrt(.25*N + .00306916*N^2) Adjustment factors for some relevant season lengths: 60 games (2020): 2.16 144 games (1995): 1.10 114 games (1994, roughly): 1.33 107 games (1981, roughly): 1.40 154 games (duh): 1.04 140 games (1919, and some older years): 1.13 127 games (1918, roughly): 1.22 Thanks eric (and glad you found your way here too). It's probably better than the straight line adjustment I use but I'll have to mess around with it. -------------- A few notes on Newcombe and Easter - I'm just looking at Newcombe's bWAR for the first time in a while and shocked at how low he is - 30.1 pitching WAR is really low when his FIP-WAR is 36.9 and his RA9-WAR is 41.3. Perhaps some park effect oddities in there, but he looks a whole lot better from the fangraphs side of things. For Easter, while I don't want to rule him out entirely, but I really don't see the path forward. He's more than likely deserving of some minor league credit for his post MLB era, but it's hard to see that being the type of peak he'd need. You're basically hoping he was Ralph Kiner, but we don't have any seasons that are clearly peak-Kiner level. He thumped in 1948, and was a nice hitter in three year run as an MLB starter, but that's basically 4 well covered years, and only one is the type of season you could possibly build a peak case around. For his post-MLB play, there is certainly some time worthy of credit, but again, not peak credit. I just don't buy that a guy who was a 125 wRC+ hitter in his mid 30s and suffering from what must have been a pretty painful injury, would have suddenly found a second gear in his late 30s. From 1947 forward, the generous argument for Easter is something around what Jose Bautista did, with a longer tail end into his 40s. That's something close-ish to HoM level, but you need a lot of projecting to get there - Bautista had three monster seasons with the bat, and it's not clear Easter had even one. Defense is another thing in Bautista's favor - he wasn't brilliant or anything, but he also could move in a way it doesn't seem like Easter could have.
|
|
nate
Hall of Merit Voter
Posts: 27
|
Post by nate on Feb 10, 2024 16:02:57 GMT -8
I think that a straight multiplier is actually pretty justifiable for league wide shortened seasons (it gets trickier when you bring in military/minor league/segregation credit). I consider the pennants in 1995 and 1996 to be equivalent in value. The one in 1995 required fewer wins and thus fewer runs, making the wins and runs in that season have more value than those produced in 1996. So, I just apply the straight multiplier. Admittedly, I don't do it all the way back through the earliest seasons (those seasons are just to unwieldly and require a lot of care to get right in my opinion), but philosophically it's the best approach for my system. But that is, in large part, because my system uses the 'season' as a base unit of measurement - I don't have a specific 'career' element or anything like that. Of course, the other way to view missed time due to strikes is that it was a playing opportunity unfairly denied to a player, making it similar to military/minor league/segregation credit. You have a lot more nuance in making your adjustment (you are projecting what they would have done in the missing time). But it also leads to some strange questions. If a player tears his ACL 2 games before the season is shortened by a strike, does he get credit for the strike? My method gives it to him - those 80 games were more valuable than 80 games of an unshortened season. But a projection based approach probably wouldn't - he wasn't unfairly denied anything since he couldn't have played in those games regardless. I did some work on schedule adjustments a while back, which of course like so much else around here was primarily posted on BTF. The adjustment I settled on was an attempt to measure how much more valuable a win was in a shorter season by looking at the standard deviation of winning percentage across various game samples within the same year (the W% standard deviation is higher in smaller samples so the straight-line WAR adjustment doesn't accurately capture pennant impact). Not sure how well I can compose the resulting formula here, but here's my best shot at it. This is the pro-rating ratio from an N-game season to a 162-game season (you can probably get away with rounding the constants a bit): 11.0021/sqrt(.25*N + .00306916*N^2) Adjustment factors for some relevant season lengths: 60 games (2020): 2.16 144 games (1995): 1.10 114 games (1994, roughly): 1.33 107 games (1981, roughly): 1.40 154 games (duh): 1.04 140 games (1919, and some older years): 1.13 127 games (1918, roughly): 1.22
Interesting. Thanks for the thoughts, both of you. I'll have to play around with those adjustment numbers.
|
|
|
Post by chriscobb on Feb 10, 2024 17:13:07 GMT -8
"Interesting. Thanks for the thoughts, both of you. I'll have to play around with those adjustment numbers."
These are reasonable approaches. Another possibility is to use a larger sample size for projecting seasonal performance. For short seasons, I use a three-year average of the player's rate of production to fill in the missing games. One can also weight the surrounding seasons less than play in the season being expanded, if that seems more reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by bleedthefreak on Feb 11, 2024 14:47:07 GMT -8
"@chris Cobb, you mentioned Ted Strong as a borderline HOF guy. Can you elaborate on his case, as I know less about him than other NGL candidates." Here's a brief view of Strong. He was one of the top plqyers in the NAL from its inception until he was drafted into WW2. He was in Mexico for all of 1940 and the first part of 1941: he didn't perform as well there as in the Negro Leagues. I have him as a 5-7 WAR/year player in the NAL from 1938-42. He then had 3 years of military service, came back with a very good (4.5 WAR) year in 1946. For some reason, his play collapsed to below rep level in 47. In 48 he was back to a 5.0/162 MEL rate, but played only half the season, and then was done in baseball after his age 31 season. I haven't found indications that he continued to play in the Negro Leagues after 1948 or that he played any independent or minor league ball. I don't know why his career ended then, but it did. If he had played 3-4 more years as an average player, he'd be a solid HoM candidate. He was an outstanding all-around athlete who also played basketball professionally with the Harlem Globetrotters for several seasons. Some NeL statistical highlights: In 1938, he led the NAL with .400 batting average and 250 OPS+ In 1942, he led the NAL with a .364 batting average and a 213 OPS+ These are peak numbers similar to what Monte Irvin, Larry Doby, and Willard Brown put up in their best NeL seasons. As things stand, my MLEs have him at 38.0 career MLE WAR, with 11.7 MLE credit for his 43-45 seasons in the military, which puts him at 49.7 WAR in a short career with a strong, fully documented early peak in 1938-42. He shakes out in my system very close but a little ahead of Pesky, Rizzuto, and Clarkson. Dr. Chaleeko's MLEs project Strong quite a bit lower than I do--I am not sure why, but I suspect that (1) his standard career-shaping measures squish Strong's early peak and (2) his way of handling competition adjustments docks the NAL vs. the NNL more than mine does. An example: Strong was clearly the best hitter in the NAL in 1938 and projects to have been an outstanding major-league hitter. He was 21 that season. My system projects him with full major-league credit for the season, resulting in a year in which he amassed 7.5 WAR. Dr. C has Strong appearing in only 96 games and earning 3.0 WAR. Dr. C projects Strong for only 29 MLE WAR, which seems far too low to me. He also gives Strong credit for seasons in 1949-51: I don't know if that's just to model a standard decline or if he is aware that Strong was playing baseball somewhere in those seasons. FWIW, Bill James ranked Strong as the #3 rightfielder in NeL history in the NBJHBA. Like Monte Irvin, Strong actually began as an infielder, playing SS, 3B, and 1B before switching to right field in the middle of 1941. Overall, I certainly am not pushing for Ted Strong as the next George Scales! My assessment is that he falls a little short, and that if we elect any more NeL position players, the two most meritorious are Hurley McNair and Heavy Johnson. But Strong was an outstanding player who compares well with the other players in the upper part of the 1940s backlog. I think he may have been overlooked because of the poor fit between the shape of his career and the projection structure of Dr. Chaleeko's MLEs. Of course, one might say that, to the contrary, Dr. C's system protects against an unrealistically high evaluation of Strong. My projection approach is to give credit in whatever amount was earned in documented NeL playing time, regardless of the typical shape of major-league careers, so sometimes that leads to a quite different view of a player. Thank you on this and the Easter discussion, enlightening.
|
|
|
Post by chriscobb on Feb 11, 2024 18:46:28 GMT -8
A few notes on Easter - For Easter, while I don't want to rule him out entirely, but I really don't see the path forward. He's more than likely deserving of some minor league credit for his post MLB era, but it's hard to see that being the type of peak he'd need. You're basically hoping he was Ralph Kiner, but we don't have any seasons that are clearly peak-Kiner level. He thumped in 1948, and was a nice hitter in three year run as an MLB starter, but that's basically 4 well covered years, and only one is the type of season you could possibly build a peak case around. For his post-MLB play, there is certainly some time worthy of credit, but again, not peak credit. I just don't buy that a guy who was a 125 wRC+ hitter in his mid 30s and suffering from what must have been a pretty painful injury, would have suddenly found a second gear in his late 30s. From 1947 forward, the generous argument for Easter is something around what Jose Bautista did, with a longer tail end into his 40s. That's something close-ish to HoM level, but you need a lot of projecting to get there - Bautista had three monster seasons with the bat, and it's not clear Easter had even one. Defense is another thing in Bautista's favor - he wasn't brilliant or anything, but he also could move in a way it doesn't seem like Easter could have.
Jaack, I pretty much agree with you on Easter, but what I think it is worth looking into is not whether Easter was Ralph Kiner--it's pretty obvious that he wasn't--but whether Easter has a case to be in a group with Al Rosen and the two Gils as among the next tier of players from the 1950s. The next tier below the bottom HoM electees for that decade is remarkably thin, and if Easter has a clear case to be included in that group, it would be good to establish that. I think it's more likely that Easter is a match for Hank Sauer, another slow slugger who made it to the majors very late also, and has a career WAR of 25.2 per BBref. Sauer was untracked by WW2 and didn't get a real shot at the majors after the war until 1948. I'd like to know the story behind Sauer's path to the majors. There's an argument to be made that Sauer should have four seasons of MLE credit for 1944-47, which would move his career WAR into the mid-to-upper 30s. It wouldn't be enough to get him into serious conversation for the HoM, but it would but him into conversation about where he stands relative to players like Rosen and Hodges. That's where I think Luke Easter might realistically be.
|
|
|
Post by Jaack on Feb 11, 2024 19:46:07 GMT -8
Kiner feels like a good comparison point for what Easter's advocates see as a potential version of his career - massive power, non-existent defense. I don't think there's a case to be made at all that Easter was Kiner, but even if he was, Kiner is a still lower tier HoM. If you told me it was 50/50 if Easter was as good as Kiner, he wouldn't be on my ballot, and those odds are a lot better than what I think it is. Sauer is a great point of comparison though ( he's got a solid SABR bio FWIW) - both guys seem to have a similar combination of limitations - poverty and WW2 slowed development, and both were defensively challenged. Of course, Sauer did not have to deal with segregation/roster quotas, but other than that element, their stories seem to reflect each other a fair amount. The key difference, ultimately, is that Easter has a somewhat romantic ending as a minor league legend, where as there's really nothing to dream on at the tail end of Sauer's career.
|
|
|
Post by bleedthefreak on Feb 11, 2024 20:20:54 GMT -8
Kiner feels like a good comparison point for what Easter's advocates see as a potential version of his career - massive power, non-existent defense. I don't think there's a case to be made at all that Easter was Kiner, but even if he was, Kiner is a still lower tier HoM. If you told me it was 50/50 if Easter was as good as Kiner, he wouldn't be on my ballot, and those odds are a lot better than what I think it is. Sauer is a great point of comparison though ( he's got a solid SABR bio FWIW) - both guys seem to have a similar combination of limitations - poverty and WW2 slowed development, and both were defensively challenged. Of course, Sauer did not have to deal with segregation/roster quotas, but other than that element, their stories seem to reflect each other a fair amount. The key difference, ultimately, is that Easter has a somewhat romantic ending as a minor league legend, where as there's really nothing to dream on at the tail end of Sauer's career. And if Kiner is his comp, he's borderline at best. The fascinating thing with Easter is mashing well into his 40s. Under modern times, could be have been a league a average hitter at age 42?
|
|
kcgard2
Hall of Merit Voter
Posts: 98
|
Post by kcgard2 on Feb 12, 2024 15:41:01 GMT -8
Kiner feels like a good comparison point for what Easter's advocates see as a potential version of his career - massive power, non-existent defense. I don't think there's a case to be made at all that Easter was Kiner, but even if he was, Kiner is a still lower tier HoM. If you told me it was 50/50 if Easter was as good as Kiner, he wouldn't be on my ballot, and those odds are a lot better than what I think it is. Sauer is a great point of comparison though ( he's got a solid SABR bio FWIW) - both guys seem to have a similar combination of limitations - poverty and WW2 slowed development, and both were defensively challenged. Of course, Sauer did not have to deal with segregation/roster quotas, but other than that element, their stories seem to reflect each other a fair amount. The key difference, ultimately, is that Easter has a somewhat romantic ending as a minor league legend, where as there's really nothing to dream on at the tail end of Sauer's career. And if Kiner is his comp, he's borderline at best. The fascinating thing with Easter is mashing well into his 40s. Under modern times, could be have been a league a average hitter at age 42? If he was on roids?... Julio Franco did it 'til age 46 as a part-timer (but a very different type of hitter/player). Nelson Cruz is in the neighborhood. Bonds of course.
|
|
|
Post by chriscobb on Feb 12, 2024 18:19:49 GMT -8
"The fascinating thing with Easter is mashing well into his 40s. Under modern times, could be have been a league a average hitter at age 42?"
Luke Appling played shortstop fulltime with a 125 OPS+ in his age 42 season in 1950, off of a career OPS+ of 113. Ted Williams put up a 190 OPS+ in his age 41 season in 1960. If there had been a DH, I fully expect Williams would have kept mashing for several years more.
It was certainly possible for players in Easter's time to continue to be productive major league hitters as far as their early 40s, but only a few managed it.
|
|
nate
Hall of Merit Voter
Posts: 27
|
Post by nate on Feb 12, 2024 19:07:21 GMT -8
And if Kiner is his comp, he's borderline at best. The fascinating thing with Easter is mashing well into his 40s. Under modern times, could be have been a league a average hitter at age 42? If he was on roids?... Julio Franco did it 'til age 46 as a part-timer (but a very different type of hitter/player). Nelson Cruz is in the neighborhood. Bonds of course. Since 1995, putting up a 100 or greater OPS+ (in at least 300 PAs), at an age of at least 41, has only happened 6 times. You mentioned Franco (who actually posted a 100+ OPS+ at ages 42, 44, 45 and 46, but only his age 45 season met the, admittedly arbitrary, 300 PA floor I put in), and, of course, Bonds, who did it twice. The 3 other 41 or older guys were Pujols in his last year, Raul Ibanez in 2013, and, very relevant to this thread, Ichiro in 2016. Cruz was "only" 40 when he did it, which is still very good, but there's also been 16 other guys who did it at 40, so it's not quite as rare. Above 40 is where it really drops off. Luke Appling played shortstop fulltime with a 125 OPS+ in his age 42 season in 1950, off of a career OPS+ of 113. Ted Williams put up a 190 OPS+ in his age 41 season in 1960. If there had been a DH, I fully expect Williams would have kept mashing for several years more. It was certainly possible for players in Easter's time to continue to be productive major league hitters as far as their early 40s, but only a few managed it. Right, from 1947 to 1960, you named the only two players who did it. Appling for both his age 41 and 42 seasons, and Ted Williams for his 41 season. If you expand it to age 40, only a few more were able to post 100+ OPS+ (again, in 300 or more PAs): Appling and Williams again, and Hank Sauer and Mickey Vernon. As you allude to, one of the limiting factors, in addition to the fact that it's just insanely hard to begin with, is you also still had to be able to field well enough to keep playing, with no DH. Though, surprisingly, of the modern guys, the only one who primarily played DH in the year he did it was Pujols.
What I'm finding from this is, 1) it's not impossible that Easter could have hit well at 42 in MLB, but only one guy did during that era, so it was extremely rare, and 2) sometimes I forget how extraordinary Appling was as a great old hitter in his era.
|
|
kcgard2
Hall of Merit Voter
Posts: 98
|
Post by kcgard2 on Feb 13, 2024 12:23:08 GMT -8
Speaking of Franco, does anyone give him credit for those years in Korea, Japan, and Mexico? If you do...he might be nearly ballotable.
|
|
brent
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by brent on Feb 13, 2024 13:46:32 GMT -8
l get the easy comment out of the way, correct on Bob Johnson, but he also was a capable player once he left PCL ball for the AL, he's an MLE credit candidate for a year or two."
I am aware of this and noted it on my 2023 ballot. He isn't far off for me, and if anyone has done any analysis of what that MLE credit might amount to, I would be happy to see and consider it.
I posted MLEs for Bob Johnson way back in [checks date] 2005. They were done using formulas developed by Bill James in one of his 1980s Abstracts. I converted his statistics to an AL environment so the MLEs could be easily compared to his subsequent AL record. Lacking park factors, I adjusted for the difference in scoring environment using the runs allowed and scored by his Portland team, figuring that this would incorporate any park effects. My original post reported Win Shares, but I've decided use WAR here (with his fielding, base running, etc. based on what bb-ref reports for his first three seasons with the Athletics, 1933-35).
Year _Lg Age _G _PA _AB _R _H 2B 3B HR RBI BB AVG OBA SLG OPS+ bWAR 1930 PCL 24 120 431 390 59 94 18 2 14 60 41 .241 .313 .405 81 0.2 1931 PCL 25 116 462 416 71 126 28 3 14 62 46 .303 .372 .486 123 2.7 1932 PCL 26 121 513 457 78 142 35 1 22 83 56 .311 .386 .536 137 3.6
Note the relatively low estimates for games played. These estimates are prorated based on his actual PCL playing time. Although in 1930, ’31, and ’32 Johnson played 157, 141, and 149 games for Portland, the total number of games played by his team in those extended PCL schedules was 201, 187, and 189 games.
It's clear that in 1930, Johnson was close to a replacement value player. His first season of clearly MLB caliber play was 1931. I follow a rule that I know is also used by several other voters of treating the first season of MLB average play as a fairly ordinary part of minor league development--signaling that a player is ready to contribute at the major league level. So I only give Johnson minor league credit for his 1932 season.
|
|
alex02
Hall of Merit Voter
Posts: 39
|
Post by alex02 on Feb 13, 2024 14:29:52 GMT -8
Thanks Brent, I appreciate that analysis.
For a borderline candidate (in my opinion), whether to award one season or two could be the difference could make all the difference. Much to ponder!
|
|
|
Post by chriscobb on Feb 13, 2024 17:20:04 GMT -8
For what it's worth, my MLEs for Johnson's PCL years track Brent's closely, although they are not as rigorously developed: I have him around a 2-WAR season in 1931, and a 4-WAR season in 1932. I give him credit in my system for 1932.
|
|
kcgard2
Hall of Merit Voter
Posts: 98
|
Post by kcgard2 on Feb 14, 2024 14:11:49 GMT -8
I would prolly have the MLEs about 15-20% higher due to games played. He actually played 150 games a year those three years, it's weird to dock him games played in a translation due to the league playing 200 games. Just my opinion. I give credit for 1931 and 1932.
|
|
brent
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by brent on Feb 14, 2024 19:17:49 GMT -8
I would prolly have the MLEs about 15-20% higher due to games played. He actually played 150 games a year those three years, it's weird to dock him games played in a translation due to the league playing 200 games. Just my opinion. I give credit for 1931 and 1932. Yes, Johnson played 140 to 150 games a year, but he was also missing 40+ games each year. And while I don't know why he was missing playing time, I have to assume it was some sort of injury as he had a couple of teammates who played almost every game. Would you give his teammate Pinky Higgins, who played 189 games in 1932 and hit almost as well as Johnson, credit for all 189 games? I used to vote for Buzz Arlett, but I never game him credit for playing more than 154 games per season. I don't know--a lot of MLB players in that era would barnstorm after the season and play an extra 30 games to make some extra money and we don't give them credit for that. The PCL just had the nice weather to allow those extra games to be part of the regular league schedule. Regarding the ad hoc "rule" of throwing out a player's first minor league season of demonstrated MLB average play (in Johnson's case, his 1931 season), I view it as pragmatic. Many or most HoM candidates have had such a minor league season, and it can be tough to make sure that all candidates with such a season are given minor league credit. Whereas it's fairly unusual for a player to stay in the minors after a good season like that, so it's easier to just skip the "ordinary" first seasons and just give credit to the unusual second or third seasons. It's up to you, of course, but I used to give minor league credit for those first seasons and then realized I was missing them for too many players and adopted Chris Cobb's method of skipping credit for the first season.
|
|
kcgard2
Hall of Merit Voter
Posts: 98
|
Post by kcgard2 on Feb 15, 2024 13:13:33 GMT -8
Regarding the ad hoc "rule" of throwing out a player's first minor league season of demonstrated MLB average play (in Johnson's case, his 1931 season), I view it as pragmatic. Many or most HoM candidates have had such a minor league season, and it can be tough to make sure that all candidates with such a season are given minor league credit. Whereas it's fairly unusual for a player to stay in the minors after a good season like that, so it's easier to just skip the "ordinary" first seasons and just give credit to the unusual second or third seasons. It's up to you, of course, but I used to give minor league credit for those first seasons and then realized I was missing them for too many players and adopted Chris Cobb's method of skipping credit for the first season. I have no issue with that rule at all. However, if that first season of MLB quality play translates as better than MLB average, I give some credit for it. For example, a guy puts up a 2 WAR MLE in 2 months or something in the minors, he [should] have been in the majors at that point. So he would have put up 2 WAR over the remaining 4 months of MLB play if given the chance. No credit for that 2 WAR in the minors, because that was his "prove it" and we'll call you up period. If he spends that whole season in the minors and it's a 6 WAR MLE, he's going to get credit for some of that from me, say 2-3 WAR.
|
|
nate
Hall of Merit Voter
Posts: 27
|
Post by nate on Feb 15, 2024 22:02:30 GMT -8
88. Don Newcombe (145.7) Gave him 2.6/4.2 bWAR/fWAR for '52 and '53, but still not that close. Very little peak value, especially in bWAR. fWAR likes him significantly better, but it's not enough. Haven't given him any credit for his age 18 and 19 NgL seasons, but I suppose he might deserve some kind of minor league credit. This was also my view of Newcombe until recently, but you might want to check out his MLEs, which give him credit not only for those two NgL seasons but also for the three seasons he spent in the Dodgers' minor-league system when he was almost certainly good enough to be pitching in the majors. I know you mentioned you're hesitant to give out minor-league credit, but if there were ever a time to, that would be it. Certainly one of the more complicated cases.
I meant to reply to this earlier, but it slipped my mind. I'm not philosophically opposed to minor league credit. Indeed, as I may have mentioned, I'd prefer to give it to everyone. if there was a database somewhere with MLEs for every minor league season, I'd happily give every player credit for all those seasons and be satisfied that I was being consistent. But, there isn't, so then the question becomes who do I apply it to and how do I do that? And that's where I struggle, because I fear that I'll end up giving it to some guys while overlooking other guys who deserve it as well. And there's also the practical matter that I'm just not knowledgeable enough to calculate MLEs on my own, so I'd need someone who has created them to post them here, or I'd need to go dig through the old site in the hopes that someone posted credit there previously.
Newcombe is an easy guy to give MiL credit for, because Dr. C has calculated MLEs for him, but there's still a judgement call. Should he get credit for both the NgL seasons and all of the MiL seasons? There seems to be some disagreement on that topic. His first year he produced very little value (.3 WAR), according to the MLEs, and this was in '44, when I believe the NgLs were also weakened due to players being in the military, so I can't see giving him credit for that year (not that it'd make a big difference if I did). His 2nd year he was 19 and the MLEs have him at 2.6 WAR, so that's his first decent year. Should he have gone straight from the NgLs to MLB, if not for the effects of racism? Possibly, but he was still only 20 years old, so sending him to the minor leagues, even a lower level one, isn't so unreasonable. I definitely don't see a great baseball reason for him pitching at Nashua two years in a row though, since he pitched very well his first season there, so that probably was the work of the quota system. I could see the case for him getting credit for anywhere from 1 to 3 MiL seasons, but I don't think I'd give him credit for the NgL seasons.
But this kind of question even touches on Ichiro, though it's unlikely to make a difference in him being elected. What are the correct number of NPB seasons to credit him with? I did not credit him for his first year, his age 20 season in 1994, though I don't have a great rationale for that. Some MLB players start that early, but not a lot, so it seemed more reasonable to credit him starting at age 21. Since I can't practically give everyone credit I don't want to give guys credit for the types of MiL (or equivalent) seasons that star players routinely put up on their way to the majors, similar to the reason Brent gave.
I mean, should Phil Rizzuto get MiL credit for 1940? He played 2 years in (what we would now consider) AAA, '39 and '40, and he hit well enough for a SS in '39. As far as i can figure out he wasn't called up because the incumbent SS for the Yankees, Frankie Crosetti, was an All-Star in '39 (even though he hit terribly) and he was considered a strong fielder (TZ shows him as above average but not great, except for '39 when he did actually have a great year in the field). I suppose it'd be tough for a manger to bench a guy coming off an All-Star year for a rookie, even if it was the right move. But in '40 Crosetti hit even worse than in '39, didn't field as well (if TZ is to be believed) and he wasn't an All-Star, so he lost his job to Rizzuto. But what's the right amount of credit for '40? Is anyone giving him credit for that year now? I haven't noticed mention of it, just mention of his war credit, but I may have overlooked it.
Anyway, the easy thing would be to declare this all too much effort to get right, and not give anyone MiL credit. But, I don't want to fall into the trap of having perfect be the enemy of good, and there's a lot of time to consider and tweak things before the next election, so I'll put this to the thread:
Who should be getting MiL credit, and how much should they get? In additon to Newcombe, MLEs for Bob Johnson have already been posted in this thread. Are there other guys to consider? Rizzuto? Gavvy Cravath? Sal Maglie? Luke Easter? Anyone else to consider?
|
|
|
Post by bleedthefreak on Feb 16, 2024 8:58:43 GMT -8
Who should be getting MiL credit, and how much should they get? In additon to Newcombe, MLEs for Bob Johnson have already been posted in this thread. Are there other guys to consider? Rizzuto? Gavvy Cravath? Sal Maglie? Luke Easter? Anyone else to consider?
This may not be exhausting, but guys that I have as under close consideration not mentioned with MLE, integration, war credit type value not captured in the AL/NL. Tony Oliva Tommy Henrich Kiki Cuyler Sam rice Willie Davis Wally Berger
roy White Brian Giles Johnny Pesky ron Cey Lonny Frey Tony Lazzeri Davey Lopes Gil Hodges ?
Jack Fournier Dolph Camilli Urban Shocker Dwight Gooden ?
Babe Adams Tommy Bridges Dolf Luque
Dizzy Dean Schoolboy rowe Curt Simmons Harry Breechen Jack Quinn
|
|
alex02
Hall of Merit Voter
Posts: 39
|
Post by alex02 on Feb 16, 2024 12:41:45 GMT -8
Just for general consideration, an interesting and provocative piece from Sam Miller about how to consider the postseason in Hall of Fame conversations: pebblehunting.substack.com/p/theres-at-least-one-stat-left-toIt'll be paywalled for those who don't subscribe, but the gist is that the championship win probability added that used to accrue during the regular season is now concentrated in the postseason and we should therefore be paying closer attention to playoff performance for modern candidates. As I understand it, he isn't saying cWPA specifically should be central to HOF conversations but is using it to illustrate his broader point about the regular season and postseason. The piece opens with a comparison of Yordan Alvarez and Kyle Tucker, who look very similar based on regular-season stats and very different using postseason ones. Excerpt: Here’s what Álvarez and Tucker have done in the postseason to date:
Álvarez, postseason: .295/.393/.556 in 244 plate appearances
Tucker, postseason: .237/.315/.389 in 239 plate appearances
There’s a stat1 called Championship Win Probability Added that measures how much a player’s offensive results changed his team’s chances of winning the World Series. In cWPA, a strikeout or a home run is worth more or less depending on factors like how close the game is, how much the team in question is in a pennant race, and whether it’s a regular-season or postseason game. In the regular season, Tucker and Álvarez’ career cWPAs are very close, as you’d expect from the similarity of their other career stats:
Álvarez, regular-season cWPA: 9 percent
Tucker, regular-season cWPA: 7 percent
(For perspective: Joey Votto, 23 percent; Justin Verlander 27 percent; Albert Pujols, 48 percent.)
But in the postseason, their cWPAs are not close at all:
Álvarez, postseason cWPA: 32 percent
Tucker: postseason cWPA: negative 28 percent
Historically, I don’t think this would matter much to Hall of Fame voters. But in the future—perhaps by the time Álvarez and Tucker are up for election—I have a hard time seeing how it can’t. I think a major reevaluation of Hall of Fame standards might be looming.
|
|