The Same Frustration Every Year

[curveball]

Every year I am astounded by the vote totals I see. I want to believe that the writers are learning more and more about which stats are important and which are not. It is such an important privilege to have a vote, and I wish these writers would realize this.

I heard that all these writers had to do was have 10 years experience, then they could leave the baseball world, go on to other ventures, and not even have to follow baseball, but they would still have their voting privileges.

You don't even have to know what ops or era+ is. If I was running things I would make sure that every writer was aware of all of these new measuring tools, and would make them have to pass a test to earn voting privileges or retain them. This way, I would know who was really serious about have such a privilege bestowed upon them.

The funny thing is that this is not rocket science. I was probably 10 years old when I bought the Macmillan baseball encyclopedia. I was fascinated with this big black book that contained names like Piano Legs Hickman. I also enjoyed playing Microleague Baseball on my old Atari system. The game allowed me to input stats of my favourite players, and form my own teams to manage. This book would now allow me access to countless players. Even back then I focused on era when I was selecting my pitching staff. Of course if two pitchers had identical eras I would have selected the one with a better winning % for my team, but I already knew as a 10 year old that I should be judging pitchers through era. I would see starting pitchers in the same league and year with great w/l records, but mediocre eras, and I already figured out that their teams probably scored them a lot of runs. I would always pick the 14-14 pitcher with the 2.95 era, over the 21-9 pitcher with the 3.65 era. To me this was such an obvious choice, and easy conclusion, yet it still seems to baffle the writers today, as they put so much emphasis on wins, and winning percentage.

The the next big encyclopedia came out. I think it was the Total Baseball encyclopedia. It included something called ops if my memory serves me right. Great, I had another good measuring barometer. The computer simulations were now starting to get more advanced and complicated, which was great. I could now input batting average against left handed pitching, and lots of other important situational stats. This is when I started buying all those STATS publications that Bill James would put out.

The game of baseball is evolving. More complex measuring tools are being developed and analyzed by many learned researchers. We should be embracing these advances instead of remaining traditional and close-minded. What annoys me the most is how little thought a lot of these writers put into their votes, and how reluctant they are to learn, or do their own research. This isn't rocket science. You just have to have an open mind, and accept that many perceptions are wrong and outdated.

[dgarza]

I understand the emotions, but...
Every year I am astounded by the vote totals I see. I want to believe that the writers are learning more and more about which stats are important and which are not. It is such an important privilege to have a vote, and I wish these writers would realize this.Perhaps you are setting your own self up for a fall???
It helps to understand that the writers/voters are who they are, and not people we wish them to be.

I heard that all these writers had to do was have 10 years experience, then they could leave the baseball world, go on to other ventures, and not even have to follow baseball, but they would still have their voting privileges.

You don't even have to know what ops or era+ is.
Sounds a lot like players...

If I was running things I would make sure that every writer was aware of all of these new measuring tools, and would make them have to pass a test to earn voting privileges or retain them. This way, I would know who was really serious about have such a privilege bestowed upon them.
And you'd probably have a relatively small pool to draw from. Many would 1) not pass, and others would 2) drop out regardless because somebody is forcing a strict measure down upon them.
You'd have to build up from scratch practically.

[curveball]

If I was running things I would make sure that every writer was aware of all of these new measuring tools, and would make them have to pass a test to earn voting privileges or retain them. This way, I would know who was really serious about have such a privilege bestowed upon them.


<< And you'd probably have a relatively small pool to draw from. Many would 1) not pass, and others would 2) drop out regardless because somebody is forcing a strict measure down upon them.
You'd have to build up from scratch practically. >>


You are absolutely right, but I would rather have 100 astute voters, than the 500 voters they have now, of which, I am just guessing, maybe less than half would are astute.

[Brooklyn]

If I was running things I would make sure that every writer was aware of all of these new measuring tools, and would make them have to pass a test to earn voting privileges or retain them. This way, I would know who was really serious about have such a privilege bestowed upon them.




That is pretty narrow minded to think that if a voter doesn't like your selection of stats, they can't vote. Each voter should have the right to choose what his own definition of a HOFer is, and vote accordingly.

You are talking about the ten year requirement. Rice has been retired 20 years. If a writer has only been covering baseball 10 years, he might not have even seen Rice play, or at least not in his prime, and was certainly not covering baseball during Rice's time. I think it is worse for a writer to vote soley on stats wihtout having covered baseball and really be engulfed in it during the player's career

[KCGHOST]

There is more than one way to evaluate a player. By-and-large the BBWAA does a representable job. Sometimes you need to "doubt your own infallibity" to realize that when you construct a group to do work like this there are going to be differences of opinion and you aren't always going to be right or on the side that wins the vote. Simply put, just be cause you think a guy is/isn't an HoFer doesn't mean he is/isn't.

[gwynnfan]

I would agree changes should be made. I think the Hall of Fame should have a panel electing voters. You can use the same standards they have now to be eligible be be chosen. Then the board meets with the people and discuss baseball, requirements etc. etc. and then the Board decides if they will give them voting privileges for a period of say 10 years.

People vote or not vote for strange reasons. One of the worst Award votes was for the 1990 AL Cy Young Award. When Bob Welsh got chosen over Clemens ( pre-steroids ) and Eckersley because he won 27 games. He was the third best pitcher Oakland had that year. Stewart was much stronger then Welsh in every stat except run support. Even Honeycutt might have been better then him that year.

[curveball]

That is pretty narrow minded to think that if a voter doesn't like your selection of stats, they can't vote. Each voter should have the right to choose what his own definition of a HOFer is, and vote accordingly.

You are talking about the ten year requirement. Rice has been retired 20 years. If a writer has only been covering baseball 10 years, he might not have even seen Rice play, or at least not in his prime, and was certainly not covering baseball during Rice's time. I think it is worse for a writer to vote soley on stats wihtout having covered baseball and really be engulfed in it during the player's career


I don't think it is narrow minded at all to at least expect the voters to be aware of what era+ is or what ops+ is. If they know what it is and still prefer to vote for a player based on how many all-star appearances they made, then I guess I just have to live with it.

I honestly get somewhat incensed when people brush off solid statistical arguments simply as creations by stat geeks. I don't really question my doctor when he makes a diagnosis because he is a book or science geek. I figure that he went through years of schooling in order to be a doctor, and that he knows what he is doing. That is why I have nothing but respect for these so called stat geeks that actually do extensive research to back up their findings. This may be strong, but only ignorant and close minded people make fun of these stat geeks because they could only wish to be so knowledgeable.

I am far from a baseball scholar, but I am most willing to learn about new evaluation methods. I respect the SABR Matts of the world who devote a lot of their time in evaluating and refining their research. I would trust him wholeheartedly to select the players he believes are worthy of the HoF because he has actually done the research. The only subjectivity would be how big he believes the HoF should be.

[curveball]

I would agree changes should be made. I think the Hall of Fame should have a panel electing voters. You can use the same standards they have now to be eligible be be chosen. Then the board meets with the people and discuss baseball, requirements etc. etc. and then the Board decides if they will give them voting privileges for a period of say 10 years.

People vote or not vote for strange reasons. One of the worst Award votes was for the 1990 AL Cy Young Award. When Bob Welsh got chosen over Clemens ( pre-steroids ) and Eckersley because he won 27 games. He was the third best pitcher Oakland had that year. Stewart was much stronger then Welsh in every stat except run support. Even Honeycutt might have been better then him that year.


Welsh only had an era+ of 126, but the voters were mesmerized by the 27 wins. Clemens 21 wins and astounding era+ of 213 wasn't enough to sway them. Neutralized, Welch would have been 16-10, and Clemens 20-5. It is asking too much for the voters to evolve, and be aware of something like era+, which really isn't that complicated. Appier had the 5th best era+ that year at 139. Welsh's selection was probably the worst in the history of Cy Young voting, and an example should be made of it.

[spark240]

I don't really question my doctor when he makes a diagnosis because he is a book or science geek. I figure that he went through years of schooling in order to be a doctor, and that he knows what he is doing.

Interesting that you should hit on the comparison of medical diagnoses, because I had a conversation a few weeks ago about the relative advancement of baseball analysis compared to medicine. The conclusion: as commonly practiced, both were far behind the leading edge of research. It turns out that a shockingly large proportion of medical diagnoses and (even more so) courses of treatment are based on "anecdotal reports"... the equivalent of, say, making HOF elections exclusively on the basis of games that you personally attended.

[Brooklyn]

Welsh only had an era+ of 126, but the voters were mesmerized by the 27 wins. Clemens 21 wins and astounding era+ of 213 wasn't enough to sway them. Neutralized, Welch would have been 16-10, and Clemens 20-5. It is asking too much for the voters to evolve, and be aware of something like era+, which really isn't that complicated. Appier had the 5th best era+ that year at 139. Welsh's selection was probably the worst in the history of Cy Young voting, and an example should be made of it.

There are flaws with OPS+ and ERA+, particulalry with a one year view. The fact that a park can change from a hitter's park to a pitcher's park in one year and back the next is more likely a result of statistical anomalies then true changes in the park year over year. Granted things like weather will effect a park each year, but to really see if a park is a pitcher's park or hitter's park, you need to look at a much longer period of time

Further, OPS+ doesn't adjust for being left handed or right handed, nor for being a power hitter or singles hitter. In the course of one year, you might face better ptichers at home and worse on the road. Or your manager might give you the day off against a tough lefty.

ERA+ has more holes, since ptichers only pitch every 5 days. They might miss ballparks entirely. they might have a dis-proportionate number of games at home. Other teams might stack line-ups against them, or they might miss good hitting teams entirely. There are frequent posting on here that Whitey Ford would be held back to avoid the best teams in the league (although I think that was dis-proved). But if that did happen, his ERA+ would certainly benefit from it.

These stats are directionally good, and might have a lot of meaning over a career. But I am not a fan of using them for single seasons without looking at the context of these stats.

I agree that Clemens had a better season then Welch in 1990, but to say Welch's selection was the worst in the history of Cy Young voting is pushing it pretty far.

[curveball]

There are flaws with OPS+ and ERA+, particulalry with a one year view. The fact that a park can change from a hitter's park to a pitcher's park in one year and back the next is more likely a result of statistical anomalies then true changes in the park year over year. Granted things like weather will effect a park each year, but to really see if a park is a pitcher's park or hitter's park, you need to look at a much longer period of time

Further, OPS+ doesn't adjust for being left handed or right handed, nor for being a power hitter or singles hitter. In the course of one year, you might face better ptichers at home and worse on the road. Or your manager might give you the day off against a tough lefty.

ERA+ has more holes, since ptichers only pitch every 5 days. They might miss ballparks entirely. they might have a dis-proportionate number of games at home. Other teams might stack line-ups against them, or they might miss good hitting teams entirely. There are frequent posting on here that Whitey Ford would be held back to avoid the best teams in the league (although I think that was dis-proved). But if that did happen, his ERA+ would certainly benefit from it.

These stats are directionally good, and might have a lot of meaning over a career. But I am not a fan of using them for single seasons without looking at the context of these stats.

I agree that Clemens had a better season then Welch in 1990, but to say Welch's selection was the worst in the history of Cy Young voting is pushing it pretty far.


There will always be flaws, advantages, or disadvantages with almost every statistic. Batting average, slugging average, on-base percentage will always favour left handed hitters because of the disproportionate number of right handed pitchers. Each batter doesn't faces different pitchers. Each pitcher faces different batters.

Although no stat is perfect, they at least attempt to draw part of a picture, and it is a combination of stats that will paint clearer pictures.

As far as Welch is concerned, I took a cursory glance at the CY Young winners from 1970 on, and in my opinion is clearly not deserved, but understandable because of what the voters have always voted for, and will continue to vote for.

It helped him tremendously to pitch in a pitcher's park because the voters really don't care about era+. His era in 1990 of 2.95 was only 26% better than average because. Clemens' era was more than a run lower at 1.93, 113% better than league average, and he also had a stellar win record of 21-6. Dave Stieb went 18-6, had an era of 2.93, and pitched 40% better than league average, which only gave him the fifth best era+ that year.

Welch had the huge advantage of pitching in a pitcher friendly park, probably got the best run support, wasn't even top 5 in era+, and absolutely was not the best pitcher that year. I don't even think he was one of the top 5 starters based on the quick glance I took. Era+ does have its flaws, just like any stat, but I doubt Welch's era+ of just 126 can be adjusted past Stiebs 140.

The voters will always value wins and win % over era. So I am absolutely not shocked that Welch won the Cy Young that year, but I am adamantly in the camp that era is so much more indicative of great pitching than number of wins, which is why I think Welch was an absolutely horrible selection. The voters and I just have different standards.

[SavoyBG]

I would agree changes should be made. I think the Hall of Fame should have a panel electing voters. You can use the same standards they have now to be eligible be be chosen. Then the board meets with the people and discuss baseball, requirements etc. etc. and then the Board decides if they will give them voting privileges for a period of say 10 years.

People vote or not vote for strange reasons. One of the worst Award votes was for the 1990 AL Cy Young Award. When Bob Welsh got chosen over Clemens ( pre-steroids ) and Eckersley because he won 27 games. He was the third best pitcher Oakland had that year. Stewart was much stronger then Welsh in every stat except run support. Even Honeycutt might have been better then him that year.


The cause of this entire problem is the scoring rules that say that wins and losses should be credited to pitchers. They should not be. Win and losses are team stats. If they had never been credited to individual pitchers we wouldn't have these problems.

[curveball]

The cause of this entire problem is the scoring rules that say that wins and losses should be credited to pitchers. They should not be. Win and losses are team stats. If they had never been credited to individual pitchers we wouldn't have these problems.

That is a problem only because many people still don't realize that w/l records for pitchers are very misleading, and should not be valued as heavily as they still are.

I believe it was voted the most misleading stat for pitchers in a poll here in the sabermetrics forum, and that is only because the posters here are far more knowledgeable than the general public.

They should at least include average run support in the stats for starting pitchers, so people could see how much that influences a pitcher's record.

[dgarza]

That is a problem only because many people still don't realize that w/l records for pitchers are very misleading, and should not be valued as heavily as they still are.

Perhaps, when it comes to HOF choices, people most often pick and choose when to use W/L records. Mostly using W/L records to bring pitchers down, but not so much to bring pitchers up.

We see here in Blyleven a case of people focusing on Blyleven's W/L record, noting he was only 37 games over .500.

Yet pitchers with better W/L records are still overlooked :

Cnt Player W-L% W IP From To Ages Games over .500
+----+-----------------+-----+---+------+----+----+-----+-------------
1 Dwight Gooden .634 194 2800.2 1984 2000 19-35 82
2 Carl Mays .622 207 3021.1 1915 1929 23-37 81
3 Lon Warneke .613 192 2782.1 1930 1945 21-36 71
4 David Cone .606 194 2898.2 1986 2003 23-40 68
5 Wes Ferrell .601 193 2623 1927 1941 19-33 65
6 Freddie Fitzsimmo .598 217 3223.2 1925 1943 23-41 71
7 Bob Welch .591 211 3092 1978 1994 21-37 65
8 Lew Burdette .585 203 3067.1 1950 1967 23-40 59
9 Tommy Bridges .584 194 2826.1 1930 1946 23-39 56
10 Babe Adams .581 194 2995.1 1906 1926 24-44 54
11 Jack Morris .577 254 3824 1977 1994 22-39 68
12 Orel Hershiser .576 204 3130.1 1983 2000 24-41 54
13 Luis Tiant .571 229 3486.1 1964 1982 23-41 57
14 Bob Shawkey .566 196 2937 1913 1927 22-36 46
15 Vida Blue .565 209 3343.1 1969 1986 19-36 48
16 Milt Pappas .560 209 3186 1957 1973 18-34 45
17 Dennis Martinez .559 245 3999.2 1976 1998 21-43 52
18 Tommy John .555 288 4710.1 1963 1989 20-46 57
19 Billy Pierce .555 211 3306.2 1945 1964 18-37 42
20 Jim Perry .553 215 3285.2 1959 1975 23-39 41
21 Hooks Dauss .550 222 3390.2 1912 1926 22-36 40
22 Jim Kaat .544 283 4530.1 1959 1983 20-44 46