the H-factor rating

[jalbright]

The formula for me took me a long time to come up with, the better part of 3 years with research, which I know by reading these sites that I'm in good company. I think I've found a home to help solidify my stance as well as to grow in other areas. This playground of information is where dialogue can help those who are gut feeling guys to come up with their own formula for rating players or they can find a person's particular formula and adopt it.

Since you asked, and not to stump, the hitting formula for what I call the H-factor is Total Bases+Runs Scored+RBI's+(AVEx5)+SB for the career stats. I add league leading stats if you were in the top 10 in any of the following categories for a slice of dominance within the era (HR, RBI, SB, AVE). If you were in 10th place that year in HR then you would receive 10 points, 9th place 20 points, 1st place 100 points etc. That way if you led the league with 12 home runs or 60 it would count the same taking away some of the problems with smaller ballparks, larger ballparks, pitching mound/distance, different kind of ball etc. MVP voting is the same except if you win the MVP you get 500 points, and 2nd place is equal to 90 points on down to the 10 points for 10th place in voting. Also, leadership should count for something so world series wins equals 500 points, league championships equal 250 points, playoffs of any kind equals 100 points. Defense was only measured by number of gold gloves won x 100. This number without the bonuses of playoffs and leading the league should be around 8000. With bonuses should be around 10,000 points if worthy of discussion for a player's merits for the hall of fame. The era before free agency this formula works very well, with everyone receiving 10,000 or more points in the H-Factor being in the Hall of Fame with the exceptions of Gil Hodges, Joe Gordon, Graig Nettles and Willie Davis. See www.baseball-hall-of-fame.com for the complete list of stats for anyone over 4000 at bats (it's a little less than 1000 names all of which I'm sure you've heard of). That's 14 statistical measures which quantifies everyone with one number to compare by eras/position. Have fun if you wish to download the stats and sort them in which ever way you would like.

To which I responded:

The #1 problem with this approach is the lack of adjustment for context. Was a guy doing this in the deadball era or the high octane 20's and 30's? Was he playing in a park which favors hitters or pitchers? The answers to those questions answers a great deal. Moreover, while I understand the bare-bones assessment of defense, it definitely leaves another large hole.

and

If there's interest in discussing henrich's approach, I'd suggest we create a separate thread for that purpose.

classic replied

Please do. This ranking system is fascinating. :)

[jalbright]

There was this related exchange in the Thome thread: Henrich started with

I have Thome at 27th all-time (since 1876) at 1B. He's in.

I responded:

That leads to a rather large Hall, no? I see 8 position players and maybe 4 pitchers (starters and relievers) as a guide for a "team". Using that yardstick, if we went 27 deep, we'd be at 27 * 12=324. That's almost 100 more than we have right now--and I'm guessing you're not including Negro Leaguers. If I'm right, that's 350 or so--and I doubt very seriously you're saying there's 100 players active right now who belong in without doing more. Let's assume you've got the Negro Leaguers and 20 actives, which would take us to roughly speaking 250. You want to add 30% more players than are already in (324-250)? That's too many for me--and my assumptions put Thome on the edge, which doesn't seem to match the tone of your post.

Henrich replied:

Sorry no tone intended at all, just trying for brevity. I meant 27th all-time currently since 1876 to the present. That's over 130 years of history and currently there are 19 1B in the Hall of Fame with some slam dunks coming in the near future. I believe Thome to be one of them.

My 27 in order...Gehrig, Foxx, Murray, Thomas, F., Anson, Mize, Palmeiro, Perez, Cepeda, Banks (SS too, I know), Killebrew, Bagwell, Garvey, Greenberg, McGriff, Carew, Sisler, Hodges, McCovey, Brouthers, McGwire, Connor, Hernandez K., Beckley, Galarraga, Martinez T., Thome (27th), and then Bill Terry. This isn't including George Kelly or Frank Chance who are in the Hall but in my opinion are undeserving.

This year, Thome already passed Terry who is in the Hall and he will catch Tino Martinez and Andres Galarraga and may reach 24th with Jake Beckley.

Of those listed not in are Frank Thomas (active, and a shoe-in), Palmeiro (steroids issues), Bagwell (I think another lock), Garvey (gross injustice now in the hands of the veterans committee), McGriff (should be a lock), Hodges (a major oversight one of 3 huge blunders by the writers in the eras before the DH and free agency), McGwire (see Palmeiro), Hernandez (fringe HOF), Galarraga (fringe HOF), Martinez T. (fringe HOF), and then we have Thome and he still has more balls to crush before his days are done. Of those 27, 17 are in the HOF, 3 will be when eligible, 2 would be if it weren't for steroids controversy. Two oversights in Garvey and Hodges, and that leaves Thome in the company of Galarraga and Martinez after this season. Those aren't definites, but Thome's time isn't done, therefore with a predicted pattern of performance over the next 3 seasons Thome's in. If there is a catastrophic injury then the Hall would consider that as well. Think of Kirby Puckett here or Ralph Kiner.

Classic added this:

I love where this line of thinking is going, generally speaking, but I'm just salivating at the opportunity to play whack-a-mole with anyone who has the cajones to call Tino Martinez a "fringe" Hall-of-Famer. Sadly, it's 1am and I've already wasted too much time tonight sparring with a maroon in the McGwire thread. (Not implying that you're mentally challenged like our little friend who doesn't quite understand that drawing walks is positive asset for a hitter.)

I look forward to tossing around this list a little with you. Some very interesting names. You appear to place a heavy value on a player's career (as opposed to peak) value. I don't see many people rank Tony Perez better than Jeff Bagwell, Orlando Cepeda better than Hank Greenberg, or Steve Garvey and Gil Hodges better than Willie McCovey. Very interesting list. How did you arrive at it?

Personally, I have Thome in my top 20. And I agree with you, he is worthy.

[jjpm74]

What I would like to know is if he is adjusting for context and era and attempting to neutralize statistics so that players who played the majority of their careers during seasons that were significantly less than 162 games and at times when many of these statistics had no meaning have a legitimate shot of making any list?

It's an interesting approach, but if no leveling component is considered, I don't see how this is any better than how Bill James handles 19th century players.

[Brad Harris]

henrich, could you please post how you arrived at your ratings? Very interested to see someone else's methodology.

[jalbright]

I'd like to know the distribution by position of guys he deems worthy. I'm guessing that with the bare-bones defensive element that 2B, SS and C may come up a bit short in terms of representation.

[jalbright]

From another thread:

If you would like to compare position/era by a quantitative number feel free to visit the site www.baseball-hall-of-fame.com I have listed every hitter and their statistics that have 4000 at bats or more. (some current players are listed as well with under 4000 abs) Also, I've included any pitcher that has 10 years experience or more. All of these players listed are from the years 1876-present, but it's only 2000 players or so. It gives you a real idea about how dominate they were in their own eras as well as throughout all time. I was able to include quantitative numbers, # of times leading certain categories as well as post-season experience to determine one qualifying number for discussion of the Hall of Fame. Go to stats and you can see who is in the hall of fame (bold) and those that are worthy of discussion still (italicized) Have fun with the excel sheets. Page 1 is all-time by position by H-factor, Page 2 is sorted by position then by era and then by H-Factor

Blue Blood responded with this:

I quite like your formulas and they are a marvelous attempt at comparing players against those at the same position and in the same era. Kind of explains why Quisenberry falls just short for me.

Great statistics page too. I know some of us here will have a lot of fun downloading them and sorting through the lists. Your book also looks snazzy.

[cbenson5]

the hitting formula for what I call the H-factor is Total Bases+Runs Scored+RBI's+(AVEx5)+SB for the career stats. I add league leading stats if you were in the top 10 in any of the following categories for a slice of dominance within the era (HR, RBI, SB, AVE). If you were in 10th place that year in HR then you would receive 10 points, 9th place 20 points, 1st place 100 points etc. That way if you led the league with 12 home runs or 60 it would count the same taking away some of the problems with smaller ballparks, larger ballparks, pitching mound/distance, different kind of ball etc. MVP voting is the same except if you win the MVP you get 500 points, and 2nd place is equal to 90 points on down to the 10 points for 10th place in voting. Also, leadership should count for something so world series wins equals 500 points, league championships equal 250 points, playoffs of any kind equals 100 points. Defense was only measured by number of gold gloves won x 100. This number without the bonuses of playoffs and leading the league should be around 8000. With bonuses should be around 10,000 points if worthy of discussion for a player's merits for the hall of fame. The era before free agency this formula works very well, with everyone receiving 10,000 or more points in the H-Factor being in the Hall of Fame with the exceptions of Gil Hodges, Joe Gordon, Graig Nettles and Willie Davis. See www.baseball-hall-of-fame.com for the complete list of stats for anyone over 4000 at bats (it's a little less than 1000 names all of which I'm sure you've heard of). That's 14 statistical measures which quantifies everyone with one number to compare by eras/position. Have fun if you wish to download the stats and sort them in which ever way you would like.

Mr. Heinrich,

If I am reading your formula correctly, then you do not give a ballplayer any credit for walks. Is that correct?

Why do you use batting average in favor of OBP and Slugging Percentage?

The points for league leadership do not seem to represent value. Why does a player get points for leading the league (or finishing in the top ten) in stolen bases while receiving no credit for doing the same in categories such as OBP.

You have to make some attempt to adjust for ballpark and league.

For example:
The National League averaged 3.33 runs per game in 1908 and 5.36 runs per game in 1930. The league batting average was .239 in 1908 as compared to .303 in 1930. The ridiculous offense in 1930 was due to the introduction of a new ball that year. Clearly, hitting .300 with a .360 OBP and .480 slugging percentage was not the same accomplishment in 1930 as it was in 1908.

[jalbright]

You could probably improve the defensive portion of your rating by giving points for defensive games at a position, in something like Bill James does for his "short form" win shares. You might have 1 point per 12 games caught, 1 per 15 at short, and keep at it in this order: 2B-(3B-CF)-RF-LF-1B and 0 for DH. It's a rough approximation of James' "defensive spectrum".

[jalbright]

One other question: do you make any allowance for military service time (especially in WWII) or for guys like Monte Irvin, Ray Campanella, or Minnie Minoso who spent some time in the Negro Leagues before, say, 1950?

[henrich]

Sorry for the delayed response, I was out of town for a couple days without access...

My thought process was that I was trying to predict what categories the writers would vote for knowing what they knew and respected in the time period that they were voting. OPS is unfortunately too knew for most writers when they were voting prior to this century. I was trying to use it as a predictor to the results of the voting. My difficulties, which were many, but included the different ball, different ballparks, different awards given in different eras etc.

I tried to keep it simple, if they led the league during a completed season in any of the categories that were respected last century then it's going to put a player's name in the subconscious and eventual consciousness of a voter for the Hall of Fame. Winning an MVP is incredible publicity, being on a championship team means more writers are watching you because only one other team was playing. Runner-up in MVP and being part of a League Championship means something, but not as much as being the top dog. Some guys have that intangible in the clubhouse and I was trying to find a way to reward that leadership quality, this was my objective answer to that quality.

I felt like adding too many categories only complicated matters, there were 3 main components that I felt writers look at longevity of a career (career numbers-milestones), dominance (being in the top 10 in the 4 categories+MVP voting in a given season regardless of league aveage, ball, ballpark etc) and finally how many championships/playoffs did this guy win? Defense is so subjective for me, it really was hard to relate. The writers used to give out the gold glove award so I assumed that they would listen to themselves and I gave 100 points for that times the number that they won.

Walks were not used because I felt like runs scored would take care of the value of the walk, though I did debate that, but in the end it became another statistic that wasn't necessary to determine greatness.

This may seem oversimplistic and reading the quality of knowledge in these threads it may be too simplistic for the new line of thinking on how to judge a baseball player, but as I have separated the players by era, by position, you can see who shined at a particular position in a given era.

You may find/or have found a better way of judging who is the best player ever. What I found interesting in the results on the hitting side was that Ty Cobb edged out Babe Ruth for best overall hitter. That's two totally different players highly respected in the game of baseball coming out as #1 and #2 all-time.

Because there are mistakes in the Hall of Fame the formula of course isn't perfect, but for me it sheds light on who these mistakes are and it clarified why certain players are left in.

I'll answer the other question in a minute as I need to consult some data on the by position question.

[henrich]

One other question: do you make any allowance for military service time (especially in WWII) or for guys like Monte Irvin, Ray Campanella, or Minnie Minoso who spent some time in the Negro Leagues before, say, 1950?

My thought process on this one was that the people that played in WWII for instance and served 2 or 3 years (and there were a great number of them that did) would be compared in their relative eras accordingly and even though Ted Williams numbers won't pass Babe Ruth's he still sticks out in his era. I can't assume what he would have done, because he also may have had a career ending injury so I just ignore it.

For Negro Leagues that was tough for me because at the time of writing this formula I was ignorant of any reliable statistical numbers that could be verified, so I just took whatever the players that played in the Negro Leagues and only counted what they did in the Major Leagues. This formula could be applied to this or any other league, but I did not address this group of players directly.

[henrich]

You could probably improve the defensive portion of your rating by giving points for defensive games at a position, in something like Bill James does for his "short form" win shares. You might have 1 point per 12 games caught, 1 per 15 at short, and keep at it in this order: 2B-(3B-CF)-RF-LF-1B and 0 for DH. It's a rough approximation of James' "defensive spectrum".

I just thought again about simplicity, I didn't make it any easier or harder for any player in the formula and the numbers would be too complicated for someone trying to calculate/explain or understand why a catcher should be given special treatment. I just compared catchers against catchers all-time and within their respective eras.

[henrich]

What I would like to know is if he is adjusting for context and era and attempting to neutralize statistics so that players who played the majority of their careers during seasons that were significantly less than 162 games and at times when many of these statistics had no meaning have a legitimate shot of making any list?

It's an interesting approach, but if no leveling component is considered, I don't see how this is any better than how Bill James handles 19th century players.


I tried to compare players only against their contemporaries at their respective positions and then put those collective statstics as a simple measure as to who was a greater player. I don't know if one could then take the number used in the H-Factor and say that Honus Wagner was a better player than Johnny Bench, but one could take the number and say that Yogi Berra was a better player than Johnny Bench. I think that's what you are asking. I would argue that you could make the jump to compare different position players, but that's a leap some may not be able to make.

[henrich]

I'd like to know the distribution by position of guys he deems worthy. I'm guessing that with the bare-bones defensive element that 2B, SS and C may come up a bit short in terms of representation.

There are 19 SS in the Hall of Fame. I think Hughie Jennings is the worst mistake, but I don't believe in correcting the Hall of Fame by kicking people out, just curious to see if you agree that he was a mistake. I would add these 5 to the Hall of Fame, Bill Dahlen, Vern Stephens, Maury Wills, Bert Campaneris, and Frankie Crosetti. I think the Veterans Committee will select Davey Concepcion to the Hall of Fame someday. I think the 4 people will be selected by writers someday when eligible: A-Rod, Jeter, Vizquel and Larkin.
That's a total of 29 SS in the Hall of Fame upon them being eligible.

To compare with CF's there are 17 currently in the Hall of Fame. I think Lloyd Waner is the worst mistake at this position, but nothing too shameful. I would add these 7 to that list Jimmy Ryan, Doc Cramer, Willie Davis, Vada Pinson, Al Oliver, Bernie Williams, and Chili Davis. I also think these 3 when eligible will be voted in Griffey Jr, Kenny Lofton and Steve Finley. Until this year I thought Andruw Jones would make it, but he needs to find his swing, because right now he's still short of making this elite list. That would bring the total of CF's up to 27 without Jones or 28 with Jones A.

I think this shows the balance in the differing skill positions. If memory serves RF's receive a great deal of respect from the writers, but I'll leave that for another day.

[dgarza]

There are 19 SS in the Hall of Fame. I think Hughie Jennings is the worst mistake,
I'm counting 20, but even still, Jennings runs about somewhere in the middle of the SS HOF pack as a player. Add his managerial pluses, and he may look even better.

Maybe I'm just a fan of Jennings's peak, but Dave Bancroft, John Ward (purely as a SS), Phil Rizzuto, Bobby Wallace, Rabbit Maranville, Travis Jackson, & Joe Tinker are arguably or blatantly weaker cases.

[Brad Harris]

henrich,

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain the H-Factor. It makes a lot more sense since I read that you designed it to mimic actual Hall voting patterns. In that sense I think it's much more accurate than we might have originally given it credit for. It seems, it is essentially a "Hall of Fame Monitor" of your own devising and, by that measure, quite a clever one. Kudos.

There are 19 SS in the Hall of Fame. I think Hughie Jennings is the worst mistake, but I don't believe in correcting the Hall of Fame by kicking people out, just curious to see if you agree that he was a mistake. I would add these 5 to the Hall of Fame, Bill Dahlen, Vern Stephens, Maury Wills, Bert Campaneris, and Frankie Crosetti. I think the Veterans Committee will select Davey Concepcion to the Hall of Fame someday. I think the 4 people will be selected by writers someday when eligible: A-Rod, Jeter, Vizquel and Larkin. That's a total of 29 SS in the Hall of Fame upon them being eligible.
Jennings is not the worst shortstop in the Hall. I have him about the 30th percentile; of course I'm bigger on peak value than many here. Dahlen is the most deserving shortstop outside of Cooperstown. I could bite on Stephens though Wills, Crosetti and probably Campaneris aren't Hall-quality players (though I can definitely see how the voters have appreciated those kinds of careers). Concepcion may very well get the VC's nod, but I hope he doesn't because he doesn't bring anything to the table that a dozen Hall shortstops don't already have more of. Jeter and A-Rod are shoo-ins. Larkin will probably gain the election he so richly deserves. I'm not a Vizquel fan (similar argument as Concepcion) but, again, I see where the voters like what he brings to the table. Good list.

To compare with CF's there are 17 currently in the Hall of Fame. I think Lloyd Waner is the worst mistake at this position, but nothing too shameful. I would add these 7 to that list Jimmy Ryan, Doc Cramer, Willie Davis, Vada Pinson, Al Oliver, Bernie Williams, and Chili Davis. I also think these 3 when eligible will be voted in Griffey Jr, Kenny Lofton and Steve Finley. Until this year I thought Andruw Jones would make it, but he needs to find his swing, because right now he's still short of making this elite list. That would bring the total of CF's up to 27 without Jones or 28 with Jones A.
I think the actual voters are more likely to give consideration to Dom DiMaggio, Wally Berger and Dale Murphy (curious why Murphy - with two MVPs - didn't make this list). Several of these guys are strong borderline candidates, but I'm usually not thrilled with advocating a guy who might be one of the 5 worst at his position once in the Hall. Jimmy Wynn is completely unappreciated by voters because of his park/era. I think Griffey and, possibly Jones, are the only ones on this list likely to be elected.

Again...very interesting, very nice lists.

[henrich]

henrich,

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain the H-Factor. It makes a lot more sense since I read that you designed it to mimic actual Hall voting patterns. In that sense I think it's much more accurate than we might have originally given it credit for. It seems, it is essentially a "Hall of Fame Monitor" of your own devising and, by that measure, quite a clever one. Kudos.


Jennings is not the worst shortstop in the Hall. I have him about the 30th percentile; of course I'm bigger on peak value than many here. Dahlen is the most deserving shortstop outside of Cooperstown. I could bite on Stephens though Wills, Crosetti and probably Campaneris aren't Hall-quality players (though I can definitely see how the voters have appreciated those kinds of careers). Concepcion may very well get the VC's nod, but I hope he doesn't because he doesn't bring anything to the table that a dozen Hall shortstops don't already have more of. Jeter and A-Rod are shoo-ins. Larkin will probably gain the election he so richly deserves. I'm not a Vizquel fan (similar argument as Concepcion) but, again, I see where the voters like what he brings to the table. Good list.


I think the actual voters are more likely to give consideration to Dom DiMaggio, Wally Berger and Dale Murphy (curious why Murphy - with two MVPs - didn't make this list). Several of these guys are strong borderline candidates, but I'm usually not thrilled with advocating a guy who might be one of the 5 worst at his position once in the Hall. Jimmy Wynn is completely unappreciated by voters because of his park/era. I think Griffey and, possibly Jones, are the only ones on this list likely to be elected.

Again...very interesting, very nice lists.


Murphy definitely deserves to make the list, but I separated them by their dominant position and I made a terrible error here and included him in with the RF's even though he had a couple more seasons at CF. Murphy scoring 10,392 which if you buy this kind of logic...Reggie Jackson scored at 15,255 points so therefore Reggie Jackson was 1 1/2 times the player that Murphy was. If you position him with the CF's where he should be he's ahead of Oliver and Puckett for the best of his era at CF. Dom DiMaggio doesn't come close in this formula, but Jimmy Wynn and Wally Berger score respectable numbers, with Berger getting a slight edge here. He's got a good case with his ballpark argument, however I was cruel in my assessments and made no allowances for anyone. They did what they did wherever they played, making subjective whatifs takes away from my goal. If everything were equal then this is how it shakes down. You all have way more expertise on some of these intangibles, and I love hearing them. The difficulties that I had with OPS over a career or even in certain years of dominance, it is tough for the voters to compare with their peers as their numbers would be aberrations at times and at others there wasn't enough of a distinction to really show their dominance the way that it should display. I included OPS in the spreadsheets, but when sorted, it didn't reflect the votes of the writers toward induction. I recognize OPS as a tool, to verify at a quick glance that this guy was feared for a long period of time, but when quantifying it with other respected statistical data of the 20th century it gets lost in the shuffle and doesn't accomplish it's intended goal of showing hall of fame worthy candidates to the voters. I think recently some of that has changed in the minds of the voters, but that has been a long process.

[jjpm74]

I tried to compare players only against their contemporaries at their respective positions and then put those collective statstics as a simple measure as to who was a greater player. I don't know if one could then take the number used in the H-Factor and say that Honus Wagner was a better player than Johnny Bench, but one could take the number and say that Yogi Berra was a better player than Johnny Bench. I think that's what you are asking. I would argue that you could make the jump to compare different position players, but that's a leap some may not be able to make.

Thanks for your response. The one thing I'm still not sure on is whether or not you give any credit for the 19th century guys as your magic number is 10,000. I can see how this number might work for WWII veterans, but in the 19th century, schedules were much shorter so unless a player stuck around forever, they had little to no chance of hitting that magic number. There was also a whole 1st generation of professional baseball stars for whom an average season would have been around 50 games who have no chance of inclusion if they needed to hit 10,000. I'm more curious about whether or not these players (guys like Ross Barnes, Davy Force, Joe Start, Lip Pike, Dickey Pearce) are being looked at in context of period or if you are simply saying that anyone from this period or any other who didn't get to your 10,000 threshold is not HOF worthy.

[henrich]

Thanks for your response. The one thing I'm still not sure on is whether or not you give any credit for the 19th century guys as your magic number is 10,000. I can see how this number might work for WWII veterans, but in the 19th century, schedules were much shorter so unless a player stuck around forever, they had little to no chance of hitting that magic number. There was also a whole 1st generation of professional baseball stars for whom an average season would have been around 50 games who have no chance of inclusion if they needed to hit 10,000. I'm more curious about whether or not these players (guys like Ross Barnes, Davy Force, Joe Start, Lip Pike, Dickey Pearce) are being looked at in context of period or if you are simply saying that anyone from this period or any other who didn't get to your 10,000 threshold is not HOF worthy.

You guys are awesome with your in-depth questioning and stating so astutely some of the difficulties that took me a great deal to work through. The guys listed above many weren't even ranked at this time period because they didn't receive 4000 at bats, so yeah I discounted their accomplishments. I took the criterion of 10 years service time and then made a liberal assessment of 500 at bats per year for 8 years would be 4000 at bats, that sounded about right. I then looked for the player in the Hall of Fame that had the least amount of at bats and still was elected/selected in the 20th century. That person was Roy Campanella, who had just over 4000 at bats. I rounded down to 4000 at bats to make sure I didn't miss anyone that may have slipped through the cracks in the modern era. The guys you have listed above, I'm no expert on as many didn't qualify. Tom Brown scores highest at CF with 7756, Monte Ward (in the Hall of Fame) scores highest at 7711 for SS, In RF it's King Kelly with 8462 (in the HOF), At 2B, it's Bid McPhee at 8121 (in the HOF), At 1B, Cap Anson is highest at 12,823, followed by Roger Connor at 10,438 (both in HOF) the third best 1B is Tommy Tucker at 6501. At 3B, Deacon White is highest at 6605, but no one is selected from this group, nor should there be. At C if you don't count King Kelly at this position, Buck Ewing is highest at 6982 and he is in the HOF. In LF it is Harry Stovey as the highest scorer at 9296, he's not in but I would argue that he should be. As correctly pointed out earlier, the formula is used as a predictor/justifier to what the HOF has done based upon previous votes. I rationalized that the numbers may not equal modern players, but you can clearly see who was the best in that era at a certain position. Hopefully this isn't too convoluted.

[jjpm74]

Thanks for clarifying for me. Your approach makes a lot of sense and is a good way to look at players.

Most of the guys I listed above are guys that if they were elected into the HOF would get there as what is called a pioneer. There are players who played in the 1850s, 1860s and early 1870s who show up in HOF conversations frequently but for which there is not a big amount of statistical information on as compared to guys who played at a later date.


These are some of the better players from the 1850s, 60s and early 70s if you're interested. Some like Matthews played a good deal in the NL:

Cap Anson* (started towards the tail end of the pre-NL days)
Ross Barnes
Asa Brainard (P)
Jim Creighton (P)
Candy Cummings (P)
Cherokee Fisher (P)
Davy Force
George Hall
Paul Hines
Andy Leonard
Fergy Malone
Bobby Mathews
Levi Meyerle
Dick McBride (P)
Cal McVey
Jim O'Rourke* (Started towards the tail end of the pre-NL days)
Dickey Pearce
Lip Pike
Al Reach
Al Spalding (P)
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
Deacon White
Jimmy Wood
George Wright
Harry Wright
Tom York
George Zettlein (P)

[henrich]

Thanks for clarifying for me. Your approach makes a lot of sense and is a good way to look at players.

Most of the guys I listed above are guys that if they were elected into the HOF would get there as what is called a pioneer. There are players who played in the 1850s, 1860s and early 1870s who show up in HOF conversations frequently but for which there is not a big amount of statistical information on as compared to guys who played at a later date.


These are some of the better players from the 1850s, 60s and early 70s if you're interested. Some like Matthews played a good deal in the NL:

Cap Anson* (started towards the tail end of the pre-NL days)
Ross Barnes
Asa Brainard (P)
Jim Creighton (P)
Candy Cummings (P)
Cherokee Fisher (P)
Davy Force
George Hall
Paul Hines
Andy Leonard
Fergy Malone
Bobby Mathews
Levi Meyerle
Dick McBride (P)
Cal McVey
Jim O'Rourke* (Started towards the tail end of the pre-NL days)
Dickey Pearce
Lip Pike
Al Reach
Al Spalding (P)
Joe Start
Ezra Sutton
Deacon White
Jimmy Wood
George Wright
Harry Wright
Tom York
George Zettlein (P)


Yeah these guys are way over my head when it comes to pioneer players. I only have a handful even rated, and as you pointed out they crossed over eras and their numbers are probably lower as they don't get "full credit". I remember rating Deacon White, Ezra Sutton, and Paul Hines. My research starts in 1876 and I relied heavily on the Sports Encyclopedia Baseball 1999 for the research on these guys and then confirmed many statistics with baseball-reference.com

[jalbright]

Henrich:

I'm not sure even you are clear on what this system is: solely a predictor of HOF voting patterns, or a ranking system you espouse. If it's the former, you don't have to embrace the Hall's mistakes for the stat you've created. That's fine. If it's the latter, you've got to accept that you're basing your system on some plainly indefensible choices that will screw you up right in the area of guys who are close calls on whether they belong in or out. If it's a ranking system, you are accepting those indefensible choices and the havoc they will create--and you can't run away from it by blaming it on the Hall's bad picks. As a ranking system, you've wedded yourself to those mistakes. In short, if you want to run away from the effect of the Hall's mistakes, you've got a system of limited usefulness. If you're willing to use the Hall's mistakes as a basis for ranking players, their screwed up picks will work to screw up yours as well, and then it's nobody's fault but your own.

[henrich]

Henrich:

I'm not sure even you are clear on what this system is: solely a predictor of HOF voting patterns, or a ranking system you espouse. If it's the former, you don't have to embrace the Hall's mistakes for the stat you've created. That's fine. If it's the latter, you've got to accept that you're basing your system on some plainly indefensible choices that will screw you up right in the area of guys who are close calls on whether they belong in or out. If it's a ranking system, you are accepting those indefensible choices and the havoc they will create--and you can't run away from it by blaming it on the Hall's bad picks. As a ranking system, you've wedded yourself to those mistakes. In short, if you want to run away from the effect of the Hall's mistakes, you've got a system of limited usefulness. If you're willing to use the Hall's mistakes as a basis for ranking players, their screwed up picks will work to screw up yours as well, and then it's nobody's fault but your own.


I see it is as a predictor of the Hall's past and then how the Veteran's Committee voted they brought in some watered down versions of greatness. The Hall of Fame at Cooperstown is the best of all the 3 major sports in part because they have such lasting statistics to compare and argue about. I love it-controversial yes, but inconsequential never. I hope that my analysis illustrates that very part. It supports the argument that you make. This system gives an objective data piece to look at and say argue all you want here are the numbers, now one can argue about circumstances, but it's enough of a data point to look at say wow I thought this guy was better than that, or it allows to make excuses for a player, and justifiably so in some instances like the earlier post on Jimmy Wynn. It's a talking point in which gives one data to support an argument, not subjectively, but objectively. Controversy surrounds these arguments whether you compare players across eras or across the diamond field it still gives you more than an argument of well because I said so that's why. :)

[jjpm74]

Henrich, I sent you a PM regarding the BBFHOF project. :)