This is a fairly stat-heavy post, so please feel free to ignore it if that’s not your bag. If you don’t want to learn about stats, but still want to learn, this is a really cool site. This defies description.
I trust that most people have realized at this point that a team’s W-L record doesn’t tell the whole story. A great case is this year’s Colts; they scored fewer points than they allowed yet carried an 11-5 record. It’s a part of baseball and life that sometimes things don’t turn out the way statistics say they should (and in fact, it’s much more interesting that the better team doesn’t always win, or that the Orioles are allowed to make the playoffs once a decade).
There are many attempts to synthesize a more accurate rating system for a team. You’ve likely heard of Pythagorean W-L, in which a teams runs are taken to some exponent and divided by that same number plus that team’s runs allowed to the same exponent.
This is generally a pretty good way to get closer to a team’s true W-L record. Clay Davenport has done some good work on this subject in the past. However, my problem with the stat is that it just isn’t intuitive. It makes sense from an esoteric standpoint, but there don’t seem to be baseball reasons why 1.73 is a better exponent to use than 1.78, except from a baseball fit standpoint.
There are also regression models that one can use: for instance; the formula for a team’s winning percentage last year was .500057 + .098455*RDPG (Run Difference Per Game) (current to 07/26 of last year, I gave up after the Cubs were so awful. Suffice to say, it does not change much). The Adjusted R-square for this formula was .732398. This is around as accurate a formula as I’ve found (I do the regressions in excel), but it’s actually more esoteric.
Eventually, I decided to come at it from a different angle. I asked myself what would happen if I compared the Cubs’ run total game by game with how many runs they allowed in every game?
First, an obvious caveat. What happens in game 52 is more-or-less dependent on what has already happened in game 52. While a bunt/sac fly is clearly not optimal in every case, in some cases it is more optimal then others, and so it may not be fair to compare game 52’s 4 runs with game 107’s 5 runs allowed (as those runs may have been reached in much different ways).
That being said, I think it does a pretty good job of telling you what a team’s true talent level is. Essentially, you record the number of times a team has scored and allowed each number of runs. You then compare the two columns to see how often each run total would have won or lost. Then, once you have a winning percentage based on how many times each run total exceeded the number of runs allowed (in ties, you win 50% of the time), you calculate expected wins from the number of times each scenario actually occured.
For example:
| 2012 Cubs | Scored | Allowed | Win% | EffWins |
| 0 | 16 | 9 | 0.028 | 0.4 |
| 1 | 24 | 19 | 0.114 | 2.7 |
| 2 | 16 | 20 | 0.235 | 3.8 |
| 3 | 25 | 23 | 0.367 | 9.2 |
| 4 | 25 | 16 | 0.488 | 12.2 |
| 5 | 24 | 17 | 0.590 | 14.1 |
| 6 | 8 | 8 | 0.667 | 5.3 |
| 7 | 8 | 18 | 0.747 | 6.0 |
| 8 | 7 | 10 | 0.833 | 5.8 |
| 9 | 2 | 9 | 0.892 | 1.8 |
| 10 | 1 | 7 | 0.941 | 0.9 |
| 11 | 1 | 3 | 0.972 | 1.0 |
| 12 | 3 | 1 | 0.985 | 3.0 |
| 13 | 1 | 0.988 | 1.0 | |
| 14 | 1 | 0.988 | 1.0 | |
| 15 | 1 | 0.991 | 0.0 | |
| 16 | 0.994 | 0.0 | ||
| 17 | 1 | 0.997 | 0.0 | |
| 162 | 162 | 68.2 |
The Cubs scored 0 runs a staggering 16 times. They obviously could only win a game in which their opponent scored 0 as well: that happened 9 times, so they win 4.5 of those games. 4.5/162 is a winning percentage of 2.8% (5.6% of the time your opponent will score 0 runs at the “end of regulation,” and 50% of the time you win those games if you score 0 runs too), and 2.8% * 16 (the number of times this scenario occured) is ~ 0.4 Effective Wins.
When the Cubs score 1 run, they usually don’t win…but they would have any time they allowed 0 (and again, half of the times they allowed 1). The 24 times they scored 1 run resulted in around 2.7 Effective Wins.
When you’ve solved that for every total the Cubs reached this year, you add up all the Effective Wins and get a reconstituted record. In this case, the Cubs were 68.2 and 93.8. That means they were unlucky last year, to the tune of 7.2 wins.
This is where that caveat comes in. First, it’s difficult to attribute all of those 7.2 wins to luck, because in many cases (where close games are concerned) bullpens and other circumstances have a much greater leverage than they would otherwise: in those cases, it might be disingenuous to assume each team wins half of their ties, for instance, or even win games in which they are 1 run ahead or behind at the same rate. Perhaps that team loses (or wins) as many as 55% of those close games (this seems EXTREMELY unlikely, but not unthinkable). In that case, you can perform a similar action to see how many of these games occur:
| 2012 Cubs | Scored | Allowed | Win% | EffWins | “Close”% | Eclose |
| 0 | 16 | 9 | 0.028 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 2.8 |
| 1 | 24 | 19 | 0.114 | 2.7 | 0.3 | 7.1 |
| 2 | 16 | 20 | 0.235 | 3.8 | 0.4 | 6.1 |
| 3 | 25 | 23 | 0.367 | 9.2 | 0.4 | 9.1 |
| 4 | 25 | 16 | 0.488 | 12.2 | 0.3 | 8.6 |
| 5 | 24 | 17 | 0.590 | 14.1 | 0.3 | 6.1 |
| 6 | 8 | 8 | 0.667 | 5.3 | 0.3 | 2.1 |
| 7 | 8 | 18 | 0.747 | 6.0 | 0.2 | 1.8 |
| 8 | 7 | 10 | 0.833 | 5.8 | 0.2 | 1.6 |
| 9 | 2 | 9 | 0.892 | 1.8 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
| 10 | 1 | 7 | 0.941 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| 11 | 1 | 3 | 0.972 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| 12 | 3 | 1 | 0.985 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 |
| 13 | 1 | 0.988 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| 14 | 1 | 0.988 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| 15 | 1 | 0.991 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| 16 | 0.994 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 17 | 1 | 0.997 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | |
| 162 | 162 | 68.2 | 3.9 | 45.9 |
As you can see, the Cubs played in 45.9 effective games where the score difference was -1 to 1. If instead of winning “50%” of those games (which this model does not believe; it is not centered about any win percentage in games decided by precisely 1 run in either direction), you could theoretically argue up to some number 45-55% of the time. That would give you a “margin of error” of around 2.25 wins. This won’t always be the case (and there isn’t necessarily a good reason to believe the 45-55% number), but it’s good enough for this exercise.
Bringing it all back to the Cubs, I’d say that the Cubs “deserved” to win 68.2 games, with a +/- of 2.3 taking bullpen considerations and some nebulous clutchiness into account. For reference, the Cubs had a Pythagenpat (a further developed Pyth W/L) record of 65.2-96.8 and an actual record of 61-101. I’m not certain if my system is more or less accurate than the more refined methods out there, but it DOES seem intuitive to me, and it is almost certainly better than W/L.
This is a rating system that seems pretty new to me, so it’s not well-tested or even necessarily well-thought out. If you’ve heard of this before, please let me know, along with any critiques of the system you might have. Hopefully this has been entertaining.
Update: Full list here.
| Team | Recon | Wins | Diff |
| CHC | 68.2 | 61 | 7.2 |
| HOU | 61.2 | 55 | 6.2 |
| BOS | 73.7 | 69 | 4.7 |
| KCR | 76.5 | 72 | 4.5 |
| NYM | 77.8 | 74 | 3.8 |
| COL | 66.9 | 64 | 2.9 |
| STL | 90.8 | 88 | 2.8 |
| DET | 90.7 | 88 | 2.7 |
| TBR | 92.5 | 90 | 2.5 |
| TOR | 75.0 | 73 | 2.0 |
| ARI | 82.7 | 81 | 1.7 |
| CHW | 86.7 | 85 | 1.7 |
| MIA | 70.6 | 69 | 1.6 |
| MIL | 84.5 | 83 | 1.5 |
| NYY | 95.3 | 95 | 0.3 |
| SEA | 74.8 | 75 | -0.2 |
| LAD | 85.6 | 86 | -0.4 |
| PIT | 78.5 | 79 | -0.5 |
| LAA | 88.2 | 89 | -0.8 |
| PHI | 80.1 | 81 | -0.9 |
| SDP | 74.6 | 76 | -1.4 |
| TEX | 90.0 | 93 | -3.0 |
| WSN | 94.6 | 98 | -3.4 |
| MIN | 61.7 | 66 | -4.3 |
| ATL | 89.6 | 94 | -4.4 |
| CLE | 63.4 | 68 | -4.6 |
| SFG | 88.7 | 94 | -5.3 |
| CIN | 91.6 | 97 | -5.4 |
| OAK | 88.2 | 94 | -5.8 |
| BAL | 84.3 | 93 | -8.7 |
Comments
Too much math
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
This is interesting, Myles. I’m curious how well this works out with other teams. Any chance you could test that?
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
I would suggest the Orioles if you were going to test this. They really outperformed their Pythag last season.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
Here ya go…
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/BAL/2012.shtml
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Blank ballots are so dumb
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
Pointed out in Brett’s post this morning: Jim Deshaies called the 20K game.
BerseliusQuote Reply
we are Sosa fans here right?
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
What do you mean he called the 20-k game?
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
i assume that he was a broadcaster for astros?
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
I’m not completely following you here, Myles, but I think that if you went about this more rigorously you would eventually converge on the pythagorean. Something along the lines of: 1) Take the frequency of each runs scoring outcom 2) Fit it to a Weibull distribution curve 3) estimate the frequency of every possible game outcome based on the overlap of the cubs’ distribution compared to a league average distribution 4) profit
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=pythagorean+derivation+from+weibull+distribution
GWQuote Reply
5. if what i said makes no sense, contact berselius and he will clear it all up.
GWQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
yeah he was the announcer for houston for kerry wood’s 20 k game.
@ Rice Cube:
holy shit, i did not realize they outperformed their pythag by 11 games although it makes sense once i think about it. i wonder what the biggest historical disparity from pythag is? i would think that 11 games is close.
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
myles, i really like this. i don’t know if it’s more accurate than pythag but it definitely makes a lot more sense to me intuitively. thanks for the post.
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ EnricoPallazzo:
I think the Dbacks have had some pretty big deviations in recent years
BerseliusQuote Reply
When I have a free hour or so I’ll probably do one for each team.
MylesQuote Reply
Any word on the HOF vote?
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
I’m guessing that no one is elected.
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ Berselius:
Correct. No One.
mikeakaleroyQuote Reply
@ bubblesdachimp:
Indeed. Though I’m ambivalent about him getting into the hall.
BerseliusQuote Reply
Yep, it’s no one.
BerseliusQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
Nobody.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Biggio got the most votes, was ~40 votes short
BerseliusQuote Reply
Wow. Unreal.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Berselius:
http://www.priceisrightlosinghorn.com/
mikeakaleroyQuote Reply
36% for Bonds, 38% for Clemens
BerseliusQuote Reply
Lofton got as many votes as Todd Walker (dying laughing)
BerseliusQuote Reply
Lofton and Wells one and done. Crazy.
dmick89Quote Reply
Who the fuck voted for Clemens and not Bonds. (dying laughing)
dmick89Quote Reply
Team Recon Wins Diff
CHC 68.2 61 7.2
HOU 61.2 55 6.2
BOS 73.7 69 4.7
KCR 76.5 72 4.5
NYM 77.8 74 3.8
COL 66.9 64 2.9
STL 90.8 88 2.8
DET 90.7 88 2.7
TBR 92.5 90 2.5
TOR 75.0 73 2.0
ARI 82.7 81 1.7
CHW 86.7 85 1.7
MIA 70.6 69 1.6
MIL 84.5 83 1.5
NYY 95.3 95 0.3
SEA 74.8 75 -0.2
LAD 85.6 86 -0.4
PIT 78.5 79 -0.5
LAA 88.2 89 -0.8
PHI 80.1 81 -0.9
SDP 74.6 76 -1.4
TEX 90.0 93 -3.0
WSN 94.6 98 -3.4
MIN 61.7 66 -4.3
ATL 89.6 94 -4.4
CLE 63.4 68 -4.6
SFG 88.7 94 -5.3
CIN 91.6 97 -5.4
OAK 88.2 94 -5.8
BAL 84.3 93 -8.7
MylesQuote Reply
Bob Costas is a cunt.
/statingtheobvious
dmick89Quote Reply
Sosa: 12.5%
WenningtonsGorillaCockQuote Reply
@ Myles:
Nice work. Do you know how this compares to pythag?
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
I expected Kenny Lofton to hang around (didn’t really think he’d get in within the 15 year time limit).
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Here’s pythag from Bref
Tm Lg G W L pythWL Diff
BAL AL 162 93 69 82-80 11
CIN NL 162 97 65 91-71 6
SFG NL 162 94 68 88-74 6
CLE AL 162 68 94 64-98 4
WSN NL 162 98 64 96-66 2
OAK AL 162 94 68 92-70 2
ATL NL 162 94 68 92-70 2
TEX AL 162 93 69 91-71 2
LAA AL 162 89 73 88-74 1
DET AL 162 88 74 87-75 1
PIT NL 162 79 83 78-84 1
SDP NL 162 76 86 75-87 1
MIA NL 162 69 93 68-94 1
NYY AL 162 95 67 95-67 0
LAD NL 162 86 76 86-76 0
PHI NL 162 81 81 81-81 0
NYM NL 162 74 88 75-87 -1
TOR AL 162 73 89 74-88 -1
MIL NL 162 83 79 85-77 -2
SEA AL 162 75 87 77-85 -2
KCR AL 162 72 90 74-88 -2
MIN AL 162 66 96 68-94 -2
CHW AL 162 85 77 88-74 -3
CHC NL 162 61 101 65-97 -4
HOU NL 162 55 107 59-103 -4
TBR AL 162 90 72 95-67 -5
STL NL 162 88 74 93-69 -5
ARI NL 162 81 81 86-76 -5
BOS AL 162 69 93 74-88 -5
COL NL 162 64 98 69-93 -5
dmick89Quote Reply
Funny how these MLB Network fucks are talking about how this is bad news for Bonds and Clemens. This is bad news for the HOF. It’s only more difficult to get in the HOF now and if they don’t elect anyone, they’re not going to make money over the long haul.
dmick89Quote Reply
12 teams within 2 wins difference using Myles’ reconstituted record and 18 with Pythag, though the Pythag numbers are rounded so it’s likely smaller.
24 within 5 using Myles’ numbers and 27 within 5 using pythag.
Range was 15.9 for Myles and 16 for pythag
Just one season of data.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
I hoped he and Wells would be over 5%, but based on BTF I wasn’t expecting it.
I love the baseball integrity discussion. Where’s the integrity in not electing the best players to be honored at the place meant to honor the best players?
dmick89Quote Reply
5 (!) ballots were blank. What a fucking joke this sport is becoming. Or became.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
Team Recon Wins Diff Pyth PD
DET 90.7 88 2.7 -1 3.7
CHC 68.2 61 7.2 4 3.2
NYM 77.8 74 3.8 1 2.8
MIA 70.6 69 1.6 -1 2.6
KCR 76.5 72 4.5 2 2.5
BAL 84.3 93 -8.7 -11 2.3
HOU 61.2 55 6.2 4 2.2
TOR 75.0 73 2.0 1 1.0
SFG 88.7 94 -5.3 -6 0.7
CIN 91.6 97 -5.4 -6 0.6
PIT 78.5 79 -0.5 -1 0.5
NYY 95.3 95 0.3 0 0.3
LAA 88.2 89 -0.8 -1 0.2
BOS 73.7 69 4.7 5 -0.3
SDP 74.6 76 -1.4 -1 -0.4
LAD 85.6 86 -0.4 0 -0.4
MIL 84.5 83 1.5 2 -0.5
CLE 63.4 68 -4.6 -4 -0.6
PHI 80.1 81 -0.9 0 -0.9
TEX 90.0 93 -3.0 -2 -1.0
CHW 86.7 85 1.7 3 -1.3
WSN 94.6 98 -3.4 -2 -1.4
COL 66.9 64 2.9 5 -2.1
STL 90.8 88 2.8 5 -2.2
SEA 74.8 75 -0.2 2 -2.2
ATL 89.6 94 -4.4 -2 -2.4
TBR 92.5 90 2.5 5 -2.5
ARI 82.7 81 1.7 5 -3.3
OAK 88.2 94 -5.8 -2 -3.8
MIN 61.7 66 -4.3 2 -6.3
MylesQuote Reply
@ JonKneeV:
Not to mention the stupid fucks who voted for people who belong in the HOF as much as anyone on this blog.
dmick89Quote Reply
So basically Craig Biggio wasn’t good enough at baseball to be in the HOF. But Bagwell, Mike Piazza, McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, and Clemens were TOO good so they must have all been using.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
There is nothing wrong with voting for Shawn Green! Anyone who disagrees is clearly Anti-Semitic.
mikeakaleroyQuote Reply
@ JonKneeV:
It went either way.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
decent article by Jayson Stark on the HOF:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/hof13/story/_/id/8826383/what-mlb-hall-fame-be
WenningtonsGorillaCockQuote Reply
Mish on Facebook wrote:
MLB and the HOF and the crusty old fucks who write about baseball need to think about this.
All you guys who grew up in the 90s will seemingly never get to look back fondly on the heroes of your youth. You’ll always have your dads and uncles telling your kids that the players of your generation were jerks and cheats. You’ll tell your sons about Bonds’ swing and Clemens’ heat, but they won’t listen because of the billboard sized asterix placed by their names in the Record Books.
What’s that going to do to Cooperstown tourism, let alone MLB fan loyalty? A key part of fan development is the multigenerational fan family. Aren’t you all going to have fun telling your kids about this period in baseball history? THey’ll be all like, why should I even watch that sport old man?
Suburban kidQuote Reply
(dying laughing)
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/01/09/did-i-do-something-wrong-because-i-really-dont-understand-this-at-all/
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Just keepin on:
Made an excel file that now creates theoretical reconsistuted records. If you wanted to know what a team that has the Cubs offense and the Tigers pitching staff would win, I can figure it out in 2 seconds (76.7. The other way? 80.6). It should also be set up so if I keep the run spreads current, it will give to the date Pyth records. Woo!
MylesQuote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
I can almost understand those who won’t vote for the convicted, and I hate but am not surprised by those who won’t vote for the merely accused, but I am flabbergasted by the withholding of votes from those only speculated about.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
Is there any hearsay evidence about Piazza or Bagwell, or is it just idle speculation?
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
As far as I can tell it was speculation because they had big man muscles.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
Some rumors about Piazza. And back acne. BACK ACNE! Reportedly. maybe. Who really knows, but it’s been reported in the media that someone saw a zit or two on his back.
Bagwell just by association. I don’t think anyone has commented on whether his back had acne or not so until we know it’s clear from acne we have to assume he’s guilty.
Arguably the best player of all time was just kept out of the hall of fame. Perhaps the best pitcher was kept out. The best offensive catcher by a fucking mile was kept out. One of the best 1st basemen in history kept out.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
That and back acne. It’s very important to remember that back acne means someone took steroids. Period. There is no other cause of back acne. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch.
dmick89Quote Reply
I hope someone pitches to HBO the idea of a sitcom about the BBWAA.
dmick89Quote Reply
The more I hear about the HOF, the less I want to go.
MylesQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
Yeah, what made me wonder about this was that Carrier Muskat pointed out that Sosa, despite being on that leaked list, was never deemed guilty of anything by any MLB body.
Again, I sort of understand the voter who thinks breaking the rules disqualifies people, but I can’t stand the guilty until proven innocent stance taken by seemingly half of the electorate.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
Crap. I’m pretty sure everyone had back acne at some point. My steroids are defective.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
With piazza, its mostly bacne (he had it, apparently), with maybe a dash of the whole “drafted in the 62nd round” thing. (I don’t remember him being tied to the Mitchell report or the 2003 violaters list, but I could be wrong about that). In the case of Bagwell, I think it’s 1) Played with Ken Caminiti 2) hit only 6 homers during his (relatively short) minor league career and was thought so little of that he was traded for Larry Andersen. Again, I don’t remember explicit connections for him.
GWQuote Reply
@ Rice Cube:
some good comments on there:
“I don’t understand a single, blessed thing about the American justice system, Mike, but that doesn’t stop me from having unshakable, 100% confidence that this whole thing could’ve been avoided if you’d just sued some people.”
“I thought I didn’t really care either but I was wrong. I’m sad for Piazza. The hall is just another venerable institution from my youth proving its irrelevance.”
frankly i’m almost glad that no one got in because it is so fucking ridiculous that something almost has to change. or so one would think.
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
I think Piazza and Bagwell were kept out for having terrible facial hair
WenningtonsGorillaCockQuote Reply
Suburban kid wrote:
I don’t like either. Cheaters are already in the Hall of Fame. We can argue about which form is cheating affects the game the most and it’s a pointless argument in the end as far I’m concerned. The players already in the Hall of Fame are there because they were great players (most of them). It’s not about the type of person they were, the problems they had, whether they were a good teammate, ruined the game and so on and so forth. It’s about the quality of their play when they were professional players. The same rules should apply to today’s players.
This isn’t the BBWAA’s Hall of Fame. It’s baseball’s and baseball ought to do something because keeping great players out hurts the game.
It’s like the BBWAA didn’t realize that sports were dirty business or something. It’s remarkable how fucking ignorant they are.
dmick89Quote Reply
EnricoPallazzo wrote:
I think it will end up being for the best because things will have to change in the future. I didn’t support a statistical based decision of whether someone is a HOF player or not, but I do now. The decision needs to be taken out of the hands of these idiots. I don’t even care what stat they use. Use RBI or (r+rbi)/roe^3.14. I don’t give a fuck. Something.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ WenningtonsGorillaCock:
Now I’m hungry for a pizza-bagel.
EdwinQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
Essentially, it is. And it will be until they are censured and/or have their voting privileges taken from them.
GWQuote Reply
Maybe the Keltner list needs to include a question about Back Acne. And a penalty for hitting too many home runs.
EdwinQuote Reply
OK, Myles, I reread and replicated what you did (the first part, anyway). My guess is that in the long run, this would beat the pythagorean for games previously played, or at least be very close. This is because you are giving the model more information, telling it exactly what the run distribution was. Essentially, you are telling it how consistent the rs and ra were (ie how they deviated from the Weibull distribution that is implicit in the calculation of the pythagorean). There is certainly something to be said for this if it makes it easier for you to grasp, but on the other hand, it limits its utility by making it more complex. Ad absurdum, we could come up with a perfect predictor of W% for previously played games by further telling the model not just about the consistency of the run distribution, but also exactly how many runs were scored for and against for each game.
Along the same lines, the model will probably perform significantly worse than pythag in predicting future w%, given that over the long haul teams have not been shown to predictably deviate from a Weibull distribution (in RS, at least).
I recommend checking out Sal Baxamusa’s archives over at the hardballtimes. He used to write a lot about this sort of thing.
GWQuote Reply
@ GW:
Technically correct is the best way to be correct, but what I meant is that the Hall of Fame is baseball’s and by extension, the fans. We’re the ones who visit and pay money and without our visits, the HOF does not exist. At least not in the way it currently does.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
I’m wondering if the reason that the fans haven’t revolted yet is that the biggest snubs (Bonds and Clemens at least) were pretty much assholes. Even Sosa, and to a lesser extent Frank Thomas, are not so well loved in Chicago. If all of them were as popular as Biggio, Maddux, or even David Ortiz, I would say that the writers are on the brink of losing their privileges. As it stands now, the fans are ambivalent enough that they can get away with it.
GWQuote Reply
Bubbs is really pissed off at the HoF. He will never go
bubblesdachimpQuote Reply
@ GW:
I’m not sure it’s so much about how the fans feel about it, but how MLB feels about it. They don’t want a HOF that doesn’t elect anybody. There’s a reason MLB created the Veteran’s Committee. MLB has changed these rules time and again to ensure that players are getting into the HOF. I don’t think it will be too long before they take the same steps with the BBWAA. I expect as more and more qualified players are left out that MLB will move to an elect-2 (or 3 or 4) system.
MLB seems to take the HOF differently than the BBWAA does. The MLB wants to welcome people into the HOF while the BBWAA wants to celebrate the few they deem deserving by whatever criteria they see fit.
I don’t think we’ll see changes immediately or within the next 5, 7 and probably not even 10 years, but I think we’ll see changes with in 20 years. Hopefully they’re changes for the better.
Of course, the older people currently voting will be dead so there will be an entirely different generation running the show. That will probably fix some of the current problems, but lead to its own.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89Quote Reply
@ EnricoPallazzo:
Calcaterra shared a couple of quotes from the HOF and from Bud Selig suggesting that the status quo will remain. So no changes for now 🙁
@ bubblesdachimp:
I think everybody should go at least once. Kind of like Disneyland. You go to see what the hype is about, and then you don’t go again because you realize that it kinda sucks.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Unfortunately, Colin’s new piece is subscriber-only, but I liked that paragraph.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
I’ve been wondering whether the recent influx of more analytically-inclined folks is resulting in a downward push for Jack Morris. Usually, when a player reaches a certain percentage of the vote, he gets pushed over the top in the next year or two (there was a pretty good article about this, can’t remember now where I read it). Morris got a bump in 2012 (54% –> 67%), but was pretty much stagnant this year. Writers eligible to vote for the first time this year started writing in 2003, which, incidentally, was the year that Moneyball was published.
GWQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
I think the fans have a pretty big role in it, too. We were tearing our hair out in Chicago a few years ago because Santo wasn’t in. Partially that was because he really deserved it, but I think it also had a lot to do with him being such a likeable guy. If there were five guys like that who played in major markets currently being snubbed, there would be a revolt.
GWQuote Reply
@ GW:
He could also have been crowded out by other (more worthy) names on the ballot.
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
@ Rizzo the Rat:
The ballot was Sergio Romo’s “fast” ball, and the voters were Miguel Cabrera.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
@ dmick89:
The Supreme Court might be a better analogy. They desperately adhere to precedent even though lots of it is unworkable (no unanimous inductees, first ballot HOFers are to be desperately avoided, punish the sinners), and are often confronted with new cases for which stare decisis doesn’t make sense (500hr or 3000 doesn’t work as well as it used to).
GWQuote Reply
@ Rizzo the Rat:
definitely. and i think the big saber-push is still a ways down the line (as evidenced by that fangraphs quote).
GWQuote Reply
@ Rizzo the Rat:
but i would really like to know the identities of the voters, when they first became eligible, who isn’t voting anymore, etc…
GWQuote Reply
@ GW:
Part of the problem today is that with the coverage we have and the very long careers, it’s very difficult for players to remain well liked. We see fewer and fewer players who are adored 15, 18 years into their careers. Greg Maddux is one and although a great many people dislike Jeter simply because he’s given so much attention, he is still for the most part adored by the fans. There aren’t many these days.
What happened with Pujols and Cardinals fans is much more common than it once was and it makes difficult for even great players who were are really good guys to have a career in which they are adored throughout.
So I don’t think it’s likely we’ll ever have the kind of problem you’re talking about. It’s not easy playing for that many years and still be loved when you retire.
As you mention, Santo was loved because he was an announcer and was likable. He wasn’t very well liked by the time he retired. Had a player of his stature today went and played a year with the White Sox, they’d be hated.
I’d like to think MLB is smart enough to realize they’ve got a real problem on their hands.
dmick89Quote Reply
@ dmick89:
yes, agreed
GWQuote Reply
Rizzo the RatQuote Reply
GW wrote:
I believe Piazza was not implicated in the Mitchell Report.
So, it was just idle speculation, guilt by association and the same logic that Soriano’s birth in 1976 was the cause of rising global temperatures (which began that year).
If they didn’t play in the late 1990s, Bagwell and Piazza would have been voted in, right?
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
Depends…did they piss off any sportswriters?
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Suburban kid wrote:
Both began their careers right about when the home run rate spiked.
GWQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
dmick89 wrote:
Rice Cube wrote:
Edwin wrote:
http://youtu.be/qlhL9Bx124I?t=16s
uncle daveQuote Reply
Suburban kid wrote:
Interestingly, I just found this piece, which indicates there is a little more smoke around Bagwell, at least:
GWQuote Reply
This is a bit late, but…
Fukudome —> saving face
Rice CubeQuote Reply
These are the articles written today that just make me HOPE this guy will never be a BBWAA writer.
“And that’s good enough for me.” Is that how the voters view this? What’s good enough for THEIR standards, not Baseball as a game?
Assholes. EDIT: I have no idea how links work (dying laughing)
http://www.freep.com/article/20130109/COL38/130109072/baseball-hall-of-fame-jack-morris-detroit-tigers?odyssey=nav%7Chead
akabariQuote Reply
dmick89 wrote:
The only way to take care of this is to ensure that players are beholden for life to the teams that drafted them.
Bud SeligQuote Reply
Ah…this was nice to see.
http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/2013/1/9/3855486/big-important-opinions-on-barry-bonds-and-the-hall-of-fame
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Beware: Porn…
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/bondsba01.shtml
It wasn’t really porn. And spoiler tags seem to have changed (dying laughing)
Rice CubeQuote Reply
new shit: http://obstructedview.net/major-league-baseball/colin-wyers-on-the-hall-of-fame-electing-no-one.html
dmick89Quote Reply