HOF Mistakes Round 2 (PLEASE READ FIRST POST)

[AstrosFan]

We all have our own definition of what makes a Hall of Famer. And many of us are simply appalled at what we see as terrible selections. I would like to start voting on the mistakes of the Hall of Fame.


Please Read These Rules Before Making Your Selections:


1. This is players only, which means players are to be judged on their playing career first. A player may receive a boost from a voter for other activities (managing, scouting, etc.), but those are only secondary considerations. But of course, do not judge a player solely by his numbers.

2. There are now 229 players in the Hall. I plan on putting a ballot of 25-26 each round, plus a none of the above option. You may vote for 0-15 players. If you think a player is close, but doesn't belong, and you have room on your ballot, check him as a mistake. A player needs to get 75+% of the vote to be dubbed a mistake. Since there will be much disagreement on who is a mistake, there is no need to limit yourself to the Rube Marquards and George Kellys of the Hall. Again, DO NOT JUST VOTE FOR THE BAD PICKS. VOTE FOR ANYONE YOU PERSONALLY WOULD NOT ELECT TO THE HALL.

3. Please do not be shy. In participating in this project, no one is necessarily advocating the removal of anyone from the Hall. It is just a way to see who we would identify as mistakes made by the various election committees.

4. All players are eligible. Do your best when it comes to players you may have a hard time judging, like Negro Leaguers and 19th century players. You don't have to read an encyclopedia, but at least some research should help.

5. If a player receives less than 5% of the vote as a mistake, he becomes permanently ineligible. No one wants to belabor the point that Willie Mays is not a Hall of Fame mistake.

6. A player must have crossed the 50% threshold by his 10th try, else he is dropped, unless he has been gaining noticeable momentum. What constitutes noticeable will be up to me, though I intend to do my best to define it in a way that will appease as many as I can. Think Jim Rice or Bert Blyleven in the real HOF voting.

7. At some point, we will reach a place where we just aren't going to identify any more mistakes. At that point, the project will shut down, and I will list the players alphabetically, and include some statistics for everyone's benefit.

8. Please be careful when voting. I do not have the power to edit ballots, and I do not wish to bother the mods constantly to ask them if they can change things. Because of this, ballots will not be changed, except in the case of honest mistakes. Please contact a mod about this if it happens, but please be very careful when voting, so the moderators do not have to be bothered more than necessary.

9. This is probably obvious, but the players are listed alphabetically.

10. Please post your ballot in the thread.

11. Voting is open for one week.


Have fun.

[AstrosFan]

*Jesse Burkett and all players below him are new to this project. Bunning and all above him are rollovers from the previous round.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Added to my previous picks of Aparicio, Ashburn, Beckley, Bottomley, Bresnahan, Bancroft, Baker & Averill are:

Frank Chance (obvious) & Jack Chesbro

Wouldn't complain if Beckley remained in the Hall, and to a lesser extent, Baker.

[Murderers Row]

Astros Fan, why so down on Bresnahan?

[CROM]

i forgot to add Jack Chesbro and Roger Bresnahan to my initial picks. if you could add them for me i would appreciate it.

[jalbright]

i forgot to add Jack Chesbro and Roger Bresnahan to my initial picks. if you could add them for me i would appreciate it.

I can add them to the totals, but your name won't show as voting for them. I don't have the ability to make that particular change.

[jalbright]

Solely as a player, Chance doesn't belong--but when his managing kicks in, he does. Three others who are darned close but I couldn't quite pull the trigger on were Bresnahan, Averill and Aparicio. Those three could all be in for reevaluation when loss shares join win shares. Even without those, there's Beckley, Chesbro, Bender and Bottomley, not to mention Bancroft, who I had to add late.

[AstrosFan]

Astros Fan, why so down on Bresnahan?

I think, for me, it's mainly because I rank Bresnahan below a couple/few catchers who I am not fully sold on as Hall of Famers. I'm just not convinced he's better than Munson, Tenace, Porter, Parrish, Schang, Boone, etc. I'm still quite a bit wishy-washy on how large my personal HOF is, but right now Bresnahan is just on the outside; though I do think he was a very good player, and underrated by many who think he just got in for popularizing shin guards.

In return, I'd like to ask why you questioned my selection of Bresnahan, as opposed to anyone else's, and why you questioned the choice of Bresnahan, as opposed to any other player.

[henrich]

Mistakes: H-Factor
Ashburn 8445
Bancroft 7373
Boudreau 7256
Bresnahan 5473
Burkett 9423
Chance 7255
Chesbro 7690

I guess I'm expecting a little more out of the OF spots, which is why Burkett is on here, otherwise, I'm good with the choices here.

[Murderers Row]

I think, for me, it's mainly because I rank Bresnahan below a couple/few catchers who I am not fully sold on as Hall of Famers. I'm just not convinced he's better than Munson, Tenace, Porter, Parrish, Schang, Boone, etc. I'm still quite a bit wishy-washy on how large my personal HOF is, but right now Bresnahan is just on the outside; though I do think he was a very good player, and underrated by many who think he just got in for popularizing shin guards.

In return, I'd like to ask why you questioned my selection of Bresnahan, as opposed to anyone else's, and why you questioned the choice of Bresnahan, as opposed to any other player.

Bresnahan just popped out because I'm a big supporter of his. I didn't look at anyone else, really.

And the case for Bresnahan is really a perfect storm, so to speak. In the book Curve Ball, the authors shows that during Bresnahan's era, OBP had a higher correlation with scoring than SLG did in other era's. And Bresnahan's specialty was getting on base. Also, we all know that catchers are usually offensively inferior when compared to other positions, but in Bresnahan's era, you'd have a better chance of finding a tall, fat, redheaded asian than you would an offensive catcher. I have a spreadsheet, if you'd like to see it, just ask. Also, his innovations in regards to equipment helps his case, too IMO.

[AstrosFan]

Bresnahan just popped out because I'm a big supporter of his. I didn't look at anyone else, really.

And the case for Bresnahan is really a perfect storm, so to speak. In the book Curve Ball, the authors shows that during Bresnahan's era, OBP had a higher correlation with scoring than SLG did in other era's. And Bresnahan's specialty was getting on base. Also, we all know that catchers are usually offensively inferior when compared to other positions, but in Bresnahan's era, you'd have a better chance of finding a tall, fat, redheaded asian than you would an offensive catcher. I have a spreadsheet, if you'd like to see it, just ask. Also, his innovations in regards to equipment helps his case, too IMO.

I have enough spreadsheets as it is, including one entirely devoted to catcher offense, but thanks. Still, I would like to see the argument for Bresnahan, because he is one of those players that is close enough that I feel I could be persuaded with a good, well-thought out argument. I know the statistical argument, but what else can you offer?

[Murderers Row]

I have enough spreadsheets as it is, including one entirely devoted to catcher offense, but thanks. Still, I would like to see the argument for Bresnahan, because he is one of those players that is close enough that I feel I could be persuaded with a good, well-thought out argument. I know the statistical argument, but what else can you offer?

Well I thought I gave you an argument but I guess not. Maybe you can tell me why you DON'T think he belongs, I'll try to counter your arguments and we can politely debate, with open minds. Or you can just PM me and we can talk about it.

[AstrosFan]

Well I thought I gave you an argument but I guess not. Maybe you can tell me why you DON'T think he belongs, I'll try to counter your arguments and we can politely debate, with open minds. Or you can just PM me and we can talk about it.

You did give me an argument, it just happened to be one which contained things I already knew.

Bresnahan's problem is that he doesn't really stand out among catchers offensively. Rather than look at rate stats like OBP or OPS+, we need to look at how many runs he was putting on the board, adjusted for schedule length and context. Clay Davenport of Baseball Prospectus suggests the following formula for adjusting to a 162 game schedule X*(162/TmG)^(2/3), where X is the statistic you wish to adjust, and TmG is the number of games that team played in the season. Nothing in this area will ever be perfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than a straight line adjustment.

I looked at Bresnahan compared to the expected runs created of a high replacement player. I looked at him compared to low replacement. I looked at him compared to average. And I looked at the raw numbers. In none of these cases was Bresnahan in the top 20, and I think he was out of the top 25 in all of them.

That would be okay if Bresnahan were a great defensive catcher, but it doesn't appear that he is. PCA, DWS, and FRAA all see him as pretty average, more or less.

Even Bresnahan's peak doesn't sail very high. None of his seasons were particularly outstanding, once we recognize that rates tend to drop as the season goes on.

The runs created numbers are linear weights based, and the weights intended to be dynamic, shifting according to the numbers in each season. I probably should have smoothed the numbers, and wouldn't be surprised if I failed spectacularly at this attempt at dynamic linear weights. But the figures look alright to me, so I'm going with it for now.

The numbers simply don't favor Bresnahan when we start looking at it in terms of how many runs he put on the board, given what we could expect. And he doesn't appear to have the fielding credentials to get him over the hump. I'm afraid for me to vote for him, he'd need a huge boost from contemporary observation. That's not likely, and the shin guards factor isn't going to get him over the hump. I had originally thought Bresnahan was the closest catcher to the inside of my personall Hall. Now I doubt that's even the case, though he's in the running.

[jjpm74]

See here for why Roger Bresnahan is a member of the BBFHOF, the Progressive HOF, the HOM and not a mistake. At worst, he is a bottom tier HOFer:

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1348219&postcount=22

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1348376&postcount=30

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1348806&postcount=42

Definite mistakes do not end up in both the BBFHOF and the HOM.

[AstrosFan]

Apparently they do, because none of those posts contained a strong argument why he should be in.

[jjpm74]

Apparently they do, because none of those posts contained a strong argument why he should be in.

If you can read 3 long posts plus a keltner in less than 6 minutes, you must be the fastest reader on the planet.

EDIT: Here is Bresnahan's HOM discussion page as well:

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/roger_bresnahan/

[AstrosFan]

Post #1 was not a long post. It was a short post. Part of post #2 is meaningless, because I never use Keltner lists to determine HOF worthiness, and I already explained why OPS+ was not meaningful to me. That leaves the Win Shares table, which is short. Post #3 isn't a particularly long post. My ability to read what I needed in six minutes just makes me literate, not the fastest reader on the planet.

I see Bresnahan as having several excellent seasons, but never truly dominant, and way too many poor to mediocre seasons surrounding them to make him a true Hall of Famer.

[jjpm74]

Post #1 was not a long post. It was a short post. Part of post #2 is meaningless, because I never use Keltner lists to determine HOF worthiness, and I already explained why OPS+ was not meaningful to me. That leaves the Win Shares table, which is short. Post #3 isn't a particularly long post. My ability to read what I needed in six minutes just makes me literate, not the fastest reader on the planet.

I see Bresnahan as having several excellent seasons, but never truly dominant, and way too many poor to mediocre seasons surrounding them to make him a true Hall of Famer.

The win shares table is not schedule, league or era adjusted. It is raw win shares. If you are going to be so dismissive of everything but win shares, there is no point in even trying to debate with you. Carry on, then. :)

[AstrosFan]

What on earth are you talking about? You brought up win shares, not me. I said my evaluation of Bresnahan's offense was based on linear weights based runs created, adjusted by myself, and I said his defense seemed to be more or less average, based on three metrics: PCA, DWS, and FRAA. I also said that the main reason I couldn't quite vote Bresnahan in is because I didn't see him as better than a few I don't think belong either.

On the other hand, you posted a table of games, another of raw win shares, a link to a Keltner list, and an interesting post by DoubleX. And because I consider the games table and the Keltner list to have no bearing on my evaluation of Bresnahan, I'm dismissive of everything but win shares. The only tools worthy of evaluation, it appears, are the ones you suggest. Yet it looks to me like you suggest in your post that I'm the problematic debater. I must be on acid or something, because there's no way a rational person would suggest such a thing.

[jjpm74]

What on earth are you talking about? You brought up win shares, not me. I said my evaluation of Bresnahan's offense was based on linear weights based runs created, adjusted by myself, and I said his defense seemed to be more or less average, based on three metrics: PCA, DWS, and FRAA. I also said that the main reason I couldn't quite vote Bresnahan in is because I didn't see him as better than a few I don't think belong either.

On the other hand, you posted a table of games, another of raw win shares, a link to a Keltner list, and an interesting post by DoubleX. And because I consider the games table and the Keltner list to have no bearing on my evaluation of Bresnahan, I'm dismissive of everything but win shares. The only tools worthy of evaluation, it appears, are the ones you suggest. Yet it looks to me like you suggest in your post that I'm the problematic debater. I must be on acid or something, because there's no way a rational person would suggest such a thing.

I presented the primary reasons why many people support Bresnahan. I wasn't even attempting to debate you. I honestly don't care enough to debate about the same guys over and over in every project. I'm here to learn more about the history surrounding these early potential HOFers. I simply posted some information for anyone who might have been interested in finding the answer to the question of why Bresnahan gets as much support as he does around here. You dismissed it without even bothering to look at it. Why should I waste anymore time on a project run by someone who will not even look at/couldn't care less about what the counter arguments for these borderline guys might be? :rolleyes:

[AstrosFan]

I presented the primary reasons why many people support Bresnahan. I wasn't even attempting to debate you. I honestly don't care enough to debate about the same guys over and over in every project. I'm here to learn more about the history surrounding these early potential HOFers. I simply posted some information for anyone who might have been interested in finding the answer to the question of why Bresnahan gets as much support as he does around here. You dismissed it without even bothering to look at it. Why should I waste anymore time on a project run by someone who will not even look at/couldn't care less about what the counter arguments for these borderline guys might be? :rolleyes:

I looked at every one of the posts you linked to except the Keltner List. As I said, I prefer not to use that method in determining Hall of Fame worthiness. It appears you do. That's just a difference of opinion. However, unless it's something I know I'm going to throw out, be it RBI, or the HOF Monitor, or Keltner Lists, I always look at the counter arguments. You continue to complain about my not voting for Bresnahan with false accusations. That kind of behavior shows you believe that unless I act and think just as you do, I have poor debating skills. It also earns a trip to my ignore list.

[jjpm74]

I looked at every one of the posts you linked to except the Keltner List. As I said, I prefer not to use that method in determining Hall of Fame worthiness. It appears you do. That's just a difference of opinion. However, unless it's something I know I'm going to throw out, be it RBI, or the HOF Monitor, or Keltner Lists, I always look at the counter arguments. You continue to complain about my not voting for Bresnahan with false accusations. That kind of behavior shows you believe that unless I act and think just as you do, I have poor debating skills. It also earns a trip to my ignore list.

What part of the statement "I do not want to debate with you" do you have trouble understanding? I have/had no interest in debating about Bresnahan with you or anyone else regardless of what system they use when looking at players. I do not care if you do not support Bresnahan. It does not matter to me what system you use/do not use. That does not mean I am dismissive of your approach. It means that I am not interested in a debate. I was simply annoyed that you were so incredibly dismissive of something I threw out there for anyone who was interested in seeing what the case is in his favor.

[AstrosFan]

Here's the way I see Bresnahan, for those who are uncomfortable with my vote:

- He was an excellent player, but falls just short of my personal Hall of Fame. I might say he's the guy who defines the border among catchers. I don't know. He's close anyway.

- There is a great case that Bresnahan is fully deserving, and I couldn't rationally say anyone who thinks he belongs is wrong.

- Having a great argument shows that it is reasonable for a majority of people to think Bresnahan was Hall of Fame worthy. It does not mean that those who go against the norm, like myself, are wrong.

- I change my mind on ballplayers all the time, because I'm constantly learning new things. Just because I have Bresnahan on the outside now, doesn't mean I'll never see him as a Hall of Famer.

[bambambaseball]

I looked at every one of the posts you linked to except the Keltner List. As I said, I prefer not to use that method in determining Hall of Fame worthiness. It appears you do. That's just a difference of opinion. However, unless it's something I know I'm going to throw out, be it RBI, or the HOF Monitor, or Keltner Lists, I always look at the counter arguments. You continue to complain about my not voting for Bresnahan with false accusations. That kind of behavior shows you believe that unless I act and think just as you do, I have poor debating skills. It also earns a trip to my ignore list.

This post makes no sense at all. I didn't seen anyone in this thread complaining about why you voted against Bresnahan. What am I missing here :shrug:

[bambambaseball]

Also, how come Earl Averill has a vote? Thats like saying Ty Cobb shouldnt be there. :crazy

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Also, how come Earl Averill has a vote? Thats like saying Ty Cobb shouldnt be there. :crazy

Earl Averill has a vote because he shouldn't be there. Thats just my opinion. Again, very nice player, but he didn't have the longevity needed to get in. To say Averill not getting in is like not voting for Ty Cobb is an embarassing statement on your behalf. If you can't distinguish how Cobb was superior to these two players, then I dont know what to tell you.

Averill did finish Top 10 in the AL is slugging 8 times - never finishing higher that fourth - but these are not a HOF credentials in my opinion. Neither is a career 133 OPS+ for such a short career. Unfortunately, Averill started late and was not able to accumulate the counting stats needed to rightfully get in. A person such as Averill should, in my opinion, have a historic or close to historic peak with so few AB's to be enshrined. Otherwise, too many players like Will Clark, Tony Oliva, Babe Herman, Rocky Calovito, Bernie Willams etc deserve enshrinement too. What about Bobby Bonds??

I rather not see the Hall go down that road. This is why I voted against Baker.

ADDENDUM: I put Averill's selection in the same mold as Jim Edmonds potential selection (Edmonds has 6% more AB's). Extremely good player, especially accounting for position, but not the longest career around. Of course Edmonds has played enough season but missed much time due to injury. A borderline pick in my school of thought. It really all boils down to whether you're a small Hall type like myself, or larger Hall type like many at BF.

Also, I could give the Averill's and Baker's of the world more leeway had they missed time to WWI or II OR had a crippling career ending injury a la Kirby Puckett mold. This was not the case for Averill. He appeared to be a late bloomer, so his numbers stand straight up as they are.

[Murderers Row]

Bresnahan's problem is that he doesn't really stand out among catchers offensively. Rather than look at rate stats like OBP or OPS+, we need to look at how many runs he was putting on the board, adjusted for schedule length and context. Clay Davenport of Baseball Prospectus suggests the following formula for adjusting to a 162 game schedule X*(162/TmG)^(2/3), where X is the statistic you wish to adjust, and TmG is the number of games that team played in the season. Nothing in this area will ever be perfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than a straight line adjustment.

I don't know what metric you use, but I use batting wins, which adjusts for league average, and the run context. Bresnahan has 20.9. That's 7th all time for catchers. BW, BTW is above average. And also, catchers during his time were also arguable the worst hitting position in history of baseball. During this time, pitchers went from throwing underhand to overhand making it much harder on catchers. A lot of catchers had to switch, and the ones who were able handle the position couldn't hit a lick. If you believe in PADJ this bumps up Bresnahan.

I looked at Bresnahan compared to the expected runs created of a high replacement player. I looked at him compared to low replacement. I looked at him compared to average. And I looked at the raw numbers. In none of these cases was Bresnahan in the top 20, and I think he was out of the top 25 in all of them.

Where did you get this info from?

That would be okay if Bresnahan were a great defensive catcher, but it doesn't appear that he is. PCA, DWS, and FRAA all see him as pretty average, more or less.

I agree he was pretty average, but his offense puts him in for me.

Even Bresnahan's peak doesn't sail very high. None of his seasons were particularly outstanding, once we recognize that rates tend to drop as the season goes on.

I really don't look at peak, but if you do thats fine.

The runs created numbers are linear weights based, and the weights intended to be dynamic, shifting according to the numbers in each season. I probably should have smoothed the numbers, and wouldn't be surprised if I failed spectacularly at this attempt at dynamic linear weights. But the figures look alright to me, so I'm going with it for now.
Could you explain this a little more.

[AstrosFan]

The info was obtained from the Lahman database. Formulas were calculated by myself.

I redid the custom linear weights using the plus one method and base runs (thanks to Tango Tiger for the idea), since I really can't remember how I originally calculated the linear weights. So, basically, I'm comparing players as hitters.

Bresnahan rates as the best hitting catcher in baseball in 1905-08 and 1910. This is his best argument for the Hall of Fame, because comparing him across eras to other catchers based on the numbers I have, would keep him out in my book.

His best competition during those years were Johnny Kling, Nig Clark, Mike Grady, Ted Easterly, and Larry McLean. Kling was the best of them, but that's not a great crop of catchers.

Which leaves us with two ways we can swing. Bresnahan in his prime was obviously very valuable to whatever team employed him at catcher, because he was noticeably superior to the top competition. But compared to catchers across eras, his batting numbers, adjusted and all, are not Hall of Fame material to me. In terms of measuring his greatness, is it really all that meaningful to dominate a generally weak top crop of catchers?

When I calculated Runs Created Above Replacement with the newly customized linear weights, Bresnahan's best hitting season as a catcher (1908) ranked 149th among catchers. That's just not impressive for a Hall of Famer.

Right now I am measuring Bresnahan across eras, and that keeps him out of my Hall, barely. If I were to measure him in terms of how much value he had to his team in the time he played, I would probably put him in. I guess the best chance anyone has of convincing me to leave his box unchecked next round is to convert me from the former philosophy to the latter.

(By the way, I am also noting his contributions at other positions. I simply haven't discussed them here.)

[Murderers Row]

What catchers do you place above him offensively?

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

The argument for a guy like Campenella getting in and a guy like Bresnahan not getting in is the quality of peak. Despite only 4205 AB's and 1161 hits, Campenella put up impressive numbers in a compact 10 year career. He won the NL MVP 3 times during that span, so it can be claimed he was the league's premier player multiple times. He basically had a near historic peak for a catcher, although he sprinkled in a couple of subpar seasons into that peak. This is the only instance in which I support a player with such short playing career getting into the Hall.

Bresnahan, on the other hand, while a premier hitting catcher during the dead ball era, spread his totals out over 17 seasons. He was only a part time player after the age of 30. He never quite put the kind of numbers up with qualified him amongst the league best players. On aggregate, perhaps he was even slightly better than Campenella offensively, especially considering his speed, but his numbers look less impressive because they are strewn over a longer career.

In short, Campenella had the more dominant peak and was confirmed the league's best player by the MVP awards. Bresnahan was equally effective offensively on aggregate; perhaps even slightly superior, but had a far lesser impact than Campenella because he was largely a part time player. In 17 years, the most games he played in a single season was 140 games followed by 124 then 116.

[jalbright]

What catchers do you place above him offensively?

Well, just using OPS+ and plate appearances:

Bresnahan is 126 in just about 5200 PA

These guys have higher OPS+ and more PA:
Piazza
Ewing
King Kelly
Cochrane
Dickey

There are two guys with the same OPS+ and more PA:
Hartnett
Bench

Two guys with one less point OPS+, but at least 1000 more PA:
Berra
Lombardi

Campy's only two points lower, and is getting no credit for his Negro League days. There's no way Bresnahan could stay with Josh Gibson at the bat, and I'd rather have Louis Santop as well. If we really dug into it, I'm not sure I wouldn't prefer Ted Simmons, Fisk or Deacon White offensively to Bresnahan. I have at least 12 I'd take over Bresnahan solely on offense, probably 13 or 14.

[jalbright]

The argument for a guy like Campenella getting in and a guy like Bresnahan not getting in is the quality of peak. Despite only 4205 AB's and 1161 hits, Campenella put up impressive numbers in a compact 10 year career. He won the NL MVP 3 times during that span, so it can be claimed he was the league's premier player multiple times. He basically had a near historic peak for a catcher, although he sprinkled in a couple of subpar seasons into that peak. This is the only instance in which I support a player with such short playing career getting into the Hall.

Bresnahan, on the other hand, while a premier hitting catcher during the dead ball era, spread his totals out over 17 seasons. He was only a part time player after the age of 30. He never quite put the kind of numbers up with qualified him amongst the league best players. On aggregate, perhaps he was even slightly better than Campenella offensive, especially considering his speed, but his numbers look less impressive because they are strewn over a longer career.

In short, Campenella had the more dominant peak and was confirmed the league's best player by the MVP awards. Bresnahan was equally effective offensively on aggregate; perhaps even slightly superior, but had a far lesser impact than Campenella because he was largely a part time player. In 17 years, the most games he played in a single season was 140 games followed by 124 then 116.

That's if you give Campy no credit for being a Negro League all-star several times before he got to the majors.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Yes, thats a very significant point I forgot to add. Negro league play must be taken into account here absolutely. Definitely puts Campenella above and beyond Bresnahan.

I wonder why 2 people voted that Campenella was a mistake?? Even for a small hall guy like me, he's a no brainer.

[dgarza]

Bancroft
Bresnahan
Chance
Chesbro

I accidentally voted Beckley instead of Bancroft.

[AstrosFan]

Mike Piazza
Yogi Berra
Joe Torre
Bill Dickey
Gabby Hartnett
Johnny Bench
Ted Simmons
Mickey Cochrane
Gary Carter
Carlton Fisk
Ernie Lombardi
Buck Ewing
Ivan Rodriguez
Wally Schang
Gene Tenace
Mickey Tettleton
Lance Parrish
Jorge Posada
Rick Ferrell
Bill Freehan
Roy Campanella
Smoky Burgess
Darrell Porter

Right now, as best I can tell it, that's who I have ahead of Bresnahan hitting-wise among players who played catcher as their primary position. For a player who is an average defensive catcher, that's not good enough for me.

[AstrosFan]

Step by step:

1. Calculate custom linear weights using base runs and the plus one method.

2. Calculate batting wins using the custom linear weights. Use the runs created outs weight, rather than the linear weights outs weight.

3. Adjust to a 162 game schedule, using the Davenport Translations at Baseball Prospectus

4. Sum all batting wins

5. Crudely attempt to adjust for era, by assuming that catchers last longer as years go by due to improvements in medicine, training, etc.

6. Average raw sum and adjusted sum.


I did a non-weighted average for the table above. If I weight the adjusted 2/3 and the raw 1/3, Bresnahan moves up to 22nd. I'm just not seeing it.

[AstrosFan]

Looking at the list above, I'd probably bump Bresnahan above Ferrell and Burgess hitting-wise. Given that the weighted average had him 22nd, I'll move him up two spots to get him 20th. It still doesn't qualify for me. I don't insist that there be an equal distribution of players among each position (non-pitcher) in the Hall.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Mike Piazza
Yogi Berra
Joe Torre
Bill Dickey
Gabby Hartnett
Johnny Bench
Ted Simmons
Mickey Cochrane
Gary Carter
Carlton Fisk
Ernie Lombardi
Buck Ewing
Ivan Rodriguez
Wally Schang
Gene Tenace
Mickey Tettleton
Lance Parrish
Jorge Posada
Rick Ferrell
Bill Freehan
Roy Campanella
Smoky Burgess
Darrell Porter

Right now, as best I can tell it, that's who I have ahead of Bresnahan hitting-wise among players who played catcher as their primary position. For a player who is an average defensive catcher, that's not good enough for me.

You rank Rick Ferrell ahead of Bresnahan offensively?? :lookitup:

[Murderers Row]

Mike Piazza
Yogi Berra
Joe Torre
Bill Dickey
Gabby Hartnett
Johnny Bench
Ted Simmons
Mickey Cochrane
Gary Carter
Carlton Fisk
Ernie Lombardi
Buck Ewing
Ivan Rodriguez
Wally Schang
Gene Tenace
Mickey Tettleton
Lance Parrish
Jorge Posada
Rick Ferrell
Bill Freehan
Roy Campanella
Smoky Burgess
Darrell Porter

Right now, as best I can tell it, that's who I have ahead of Bresnahan hitting-wise among players who played catcher as their primary position. For a player who is an average defensive catcher, that's not good enough for me.

Wally Schang? You mean to tell me Palmers Batting Runs/Wins are THAT far off?

[Murderers Row]

Step by step:

1. Calculate custom linear weights using base runs and the plus one method.

2. Calculate batting wins using the custom linear weights. Use the runs created outs weight, rather than the linear weights outs weight.

3. Adjust to a 162 game schedule, using the Davenport Translations at Baseball Prospectus

4. Sum all batting wins

5. Crudely attempt to adjust for era, by assuming that catchers last longer as years go by due to improvements in medicine, training, etc.

6. Average raw sum and adjusted sum.


I did a non-weighted average for the table above. If I weight the adjusted 2/3 and the raw 1/3, Bresnahan moves up to 22nd. I'm just not seeing it.

The biggest difference is probably your "custom" linear weights, and Palmers. Can you show me the exact weights for the events that you're using.

[AstrosFan]

You rank Rick Ferrell ahead of Bresnahan offensively?? :lookitup:

I just have to know. Did you completely miss the post where I said I would rank Bresnahan ahead of Ferrell offensively? It was right after I posted the table.

[AstrosFan]

The biggest difference is probably your "custom" linear weights, and Palmers. Can you show me the exact weights for the events that you're using.

I will, once you explain your point. The weights should be adjusted for era. Using the same Palmer weights for all league/seasons would be less correct.

[Murderers Row]

I will, once you explain your point. The weights should be adjusted for era. Using the same Palmer weights for all league/seasons would be less correct.

So you're saying you use different weights depending on the era?

[AstrosFan]

So you're saying you use different weights depending on the era?

I don't create these arbitrarily. As I said, this isn't my idea, but was taken from Tom Tango, aka Tango Tiger, one of the best sabermetricians around. Pretty much all my ideas in sabermetrics come from people smarter than me. I am a very mediocre sabermetrician.

The weights are derived from the player's team's Base Runs, using the plus one method. There is not a large difference between the weights for each player season for it to be a cause of the difference in my results and whatever one would get with the standard weights.

I think the main differences are:

1) I am using the runs created out weight, instead of the linear weights out weight (the latter would give it a value above average)

2) I am not including stolen bases (this is a measure of hitting, as I've said).


Could Bresnahan move up with a stolen base bump. Maybe. But I'm not going to assume he'd steal 234 in any era. To take that number at face value would be silly. I could bump him up one more spot. Two, max. And that's just among major leaguers. He really can't leapfrog anyone through defense. I just don't see it.

[Murderers Row]

I don't create these arbitrarily. As I said, this isn't my idea, but was taken from Tom Tango, aka Tango Tiger, one of the best sabermetricians around. Pretty much all my ideas in sabermetrics come from people smarter than me. I am a very mediocre sabermetrician.

The weights are derived from the player's team's Base Runs, using the plus one method. There is not a large difference between the weights for each player season for it to be a cause of the difference in my results and whatever one would get with the standard weights.

I think the main differences are:

1) I am using the runs created out weight, instead of the linear weights out weight (the latter would give it a value above average)

2) I am not including stolen bases (this is a measure of hitting, as I've said).


Could Bresnahan move up with a stolen base bump. Maybe. But I'm not going to assume he'd steal 234 in any era. To take that number at face value would be silly. I could bump him up one more spot. Two, max. And that's just among major leaguers. He really can't leapfrog anyone through defense. I just don't see it.

Oh, I'm just asking you questions, and I'm not trying to sound condescending. I've seen you're posts, I know you're pretty smart. And I know Tom is one of the best around. I'm a very sucky sabermetrician. Most of my ideas are not mine, so I don't even really call myself one, I just prefer that kind of analysis.

So why would the RC weight of an out cause such a discrepancy between our evaluations of offense?

Also, what is the "plus 1" method

BTW, I didn't count Stolen Bases either.

[AstrosFan]

Oh, I'm just asking you questions, and I'm not trying to sound condescending. I've seen you're posts, I know you're pretty smart. And I know Tom is one of the best around. I'm a very sucky sabermetrician. Most of my ideas are not mine, so I don't even really call myself one, I just prefer that kind of analysis.

So why would the RC weight of an out cause such a discrepancy between our evaluations of offense?

Also, what is the "plus 1" method

BTW, I didn't count Stolen Bases either.

I'm not taking offense. I see this as a pretty friendly debate. However, I would rather not proceed any further on Bresnahan.

To answer your questions, the RC value is usually between .09 and .11, while the LW value is usually between .27 and .3. Linear weights is a value above average. Using the runs created value simply tells us how many absolute runs a player created. I then calculate the batting wins with the same formula, but with the absolute instead of above average runs.

The Plus 1 method takes a little longer. Base Runs breaks down into reaching base, the runner score rate, and home runs, the fundamental way runs are scored. See Tango's three-part work on "How Runs Are Really Created". The formula is A*(B/(B+C))+D, where:

A = H + BB - HR
B = .8*1B + 2.1*2B + 3.4*3B + 1.8*HR + .1*BB
C = AB - H
D = HR

That's the simple version. I can use that to estimate runs for any team. The plus 1 method is seeing how the Base Runs for a team changes when you add one of an event. So for a single, you would add to:

A One, since we add a hit that is not a home run
B 0.8, because that is the B value of a single
C Nothing. Batting outs do not change.
D Nothing. No home runs added.

Doubles, triples, and walks behave the same way. For home runs, you add to:

A Nothing, because if you add one to the hits, you still take away one from the home runs
B 1.8, the value of a home run
C Nothing, explained above
D One, since we add a home run

For the runs created out, you add to:

A Nothing
B Nothing
C One, as you add an unsuccessful at bat
D Nothing

For the linear weights out, you do the same, except you add two to the C part.

(Edit: I think I may have that part wrong. I'm looking into it).

And to give you an example, here are the weights I got for Hank Aaron's rookie season in 1954 (rounded to three decimal places).

1B = .477
2B = .758
3B = 1.039
HR = 1.389
BB = .304
RCOut = -.095
LWOut = -.284

Those strongly resemble Palmer's weights. Sure, a number of teams are more extreme than that, but offensive value isn't static, it's dynamic, and I think Palmer's great work should be tweaked to reflect that.

Have a great 2009.


-AF

[Murderers Row]

Thanks for the explanation.

Enjoy your 2009 as well.