Comments on: On the Ten Post-1942 Old-Timers Nominated for the HOF http://seamheads.com/2008/10/12/on-the-ten-post-1942-old-timers-nominated-for-the-hof/ Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:40:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Tom Stone http://seamheads.com/2008/10/12/on-the-ten-post-1942-old-timers-nominated-for-the-hof/comment-page-1/#comment-3808 Tom Stone Thu, 16 Oct 2008 01:37:46 +0000 http://seamheads.com/blog/2008/10/12/on-the-ten-post-1942-old-timers-nominated-for-the-hof/#comment-3808 Yes, each of those methods has its flaws. You noted flaws with HOF Monitor in particular, all good points. I actually like Black Ink and Gray Ink, since those are means of comparing a player against his peers, in the same way that career all-star appearances does. But the two ink scores also have flaws, which are noted in the descriptions of them at baseball-reference.com. I'm not a big advocate to any of these systems, including Win Shares even. In fact, you'll notice that I didn't actually argue for any players to be in or out of the HOF based on any of these metrics -- I was just reporting the results for these players, which I found an interesting exercise and thought readers would too. My final opinion on the players and which are HOF worthy is an aggregate of "all things considered", which goes way beyond the metrics detailed in this posting. And I agree with both you and Bill James that Santo is a top-10 all-time 3B.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('3808','Tom Stone'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('3808','Tom Stone','Yes, each of those methods has its flaws. You noted flaws with HOF Monitor in particular, all good points. I actually like Black Ink and Gray Ink, since those are means of comparing a player against his peers, in the same way that career all-star appearances does. But the two ink scores also have flaws, which are noted in the descriptions of them at baseball-reference.com. \r\n\r\nI\'m not a big advocate to any of these systems, including Win Shares even. In fact, you\'ll notice that I didn\'t actually argue for any players to be in or out of the HOF based on any of these metrics -- I was just reporting the results for these players, which I found an interesting exercise and thought readers would too.\r\n\r\nMy final opinion on the players and which are HOF worthy is an aggregate of \"all things considered\", which goes way beyond the metrics detailed in this posting.\r\n\r\nAnd I agree with both you and Bill James that Santo is a top-10 all-time 3B.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Yes, each of those methods has its flaws. You noted flaws with HOF Monitor in particular, all good points. I actually like Black Ink and Gray Ink, since those are means of comparing a player against his peers, in the same way that career all-star appearances does. But the two ink scores also have flaws, which are noted in the descriptions of them at baseball-reference.com.

I’m not a big advocate to any of these systems, including Win Shares even. In fact, you’ll notice that I didn’t actually argue for any players to be in or out of the HOF based on any of these metrics — I was just reporting the results for these players, which I found an interesting exercise and thought readers would too.

My final opinion on the players and which are HOF worthy is an aggregate of “all things considered”, which goes way beyond the metrics detailed in this posting.

And I agree with both you and Bill James that Santo is a top-10 all-time 3B.

Reply – Quote
]]> By: tk http://seamheads.com/2008/10/12/on-the-ten-post-1942-old-timers-nominated-for-the-hof/comment-page-1/#comment-3806 tk Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:34:17 +0000 http://seamheads.com/blog/2008/10/12/on-the-ten-post-1942-old-timers-nominated-for-the-hof/#comment-3806 I think using black ink, grey ink, HF standards, the HOF monitor and similarity scores are pretty bad ways to pick HOF players. There are significant flaws to all of them. Among the most noticeable flaws for the monitor and similarity scores are that they do not adjust for era. Santo, who played in the big strike zone 60s, appears to have had his numbers sanded off just enough at the margins to make it appear that he was worse than he actually was. His prime was between 1963-68, which is exactly when the big strike zone was in effect. Home runs were down 10% in all of baseball during that period. The metrics also do not adjust for position: numbers that would not be good enough for an outfielder or a first baseman could be great for a shortstop or catcher. Further, the absurdity of the monitor can be demonstrated with this example: if you took 11 rbi off of Santo's 1969 season and spread them to 4 other years, Santo's monitor score would be 100. If he had two more doubles another year, that'd be another point. As it turns out, Santo's career OPS+ score would rank him 6th of all MLB third basemen in the Hall. He is easily one of the ten best ever to play the position.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('3806','tk'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('3806','tk','I think using black ink, grey ink, HF standards, the HOF monitor and similarity scores are pretty bad ways to pick HOF players. There are significant flaws to all of them. Among the most noticeable flaws for the monitor and similarity scores are that they do not adjust for era. Santo, who played in the big strike zone 60s, appears to have had his numbers sanded off just enough at the margins to make it appear that he was worse than he actually was. His prime was between 1963-68, which is exactly when the big strike zone was in effect. Home runs were down 10% in all of baseball during that period. The metrics also do not adjust for position: numbers that would not be good enough for an outfielder or a first baseman could be great for a shortstop or catcher. Further, the absurdity of the monitor can be demonstrated with this example: if you took 11 rbi off of Santo\'s 1969 season and spread them to 4 other years, Santo\'s monitor score would be 100. If he had two more doubles another year, that\'d be another point.\r\n\r\nAs it turns out, Santo\'s career OPS+ score would rank him 6th of all MLB third basemen in the Hall. He is easily one of the ten best ever to play the position.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> I think using black ink, grey ink, HF standards, the HOF monitor and similarity scores are pretty bad ways to pick HOF players. There are significant flaws to all of them. Among the most noticeable flaws for the monitor and similarity scores are that they do not adjust for era. Santo, who played in the big strike zone 60s, appears to have had his numbers sanded off just enough at the margins to make it appear that he was worse than he actually was. His prime was between 1963-68, which is exactly when the big strike zone was in effect. Home runs were down 10% in all of baseball during that period. The metrics also do not adjust for position: numbers that would not be good enough for an outfielder or a first baseman could be great for a shortstop or catcher. Further, the absurdity of the monitor can be demonstrated with this example: if you took 11 rbi off of Santo’s 1969 season and spread them to 4 other years, Santo’s monitor score would be 100. If he had two more doubles another year, that’d be another point.

As it turns out, Santo’s career OPS+ score would rank him 6th of all MLB third basemen in the Hall. He is easily one of the ten best ever to play the position.

Reply – Quote
]]> By: Tom Stone http://seamheads.com/2008/10/12/on-the-ten-post-1942-old-timers-nominated-for-the-hof/comment-page-1/#comment-3785 Tom Stone Wed, 15 Oct 2008 02:09:18 +0000 http://seamheads.com/blog/2008/10/12/on-the-ten-post-1942-old-timers-nominated-for-the-hof/#comment-3785 I can't comment on his self-promotion for the HOF, because I'm actually not that familiar with it. I assume most people who have not supported Santo have done so because his career numbers don't scream HOF. A .277 average is pretty low for HOFer, and 342 HR are less than many other clear non-HOFers have. In looking at his season-by-season stats, he was a consistent run producer - but never had any amazing bursts of power really. In fact, he had 8 seasons of 25-33 HR, but never more than 33. He never got higher than 4th in the MVP vote either. Plus, as a Cub, he has no post-season heroics to pad his resume. I tend to weigh a player's number of all-star appearances and gold-glove awards more than others do I think. I consider those an approximation (not perfect, but a good rough estimate) of the quality of the player because it involves comparing him with his co-temporaries -- his true peers-of-the-day. Here Santo is strong: 9-time All-Star, and 5 Gold Gloves. I'll admit though, without his long broadcasting career adding to his resume, I might not support him for the HOF. I think that helps tips the scales in his favor -- as it certainly does with Joe Torre (managing career in his case).<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('3785','Tom Stone'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('3785','Tom Stone','I can\'t comment on his self-promotion for the HOF, because I\'m actually not that familiar with it. \r\n\r\nI assume most people who have not supported Santo have done so because his career numbers don\'t scream HOF. A .277 average is pretty low for HOFer, and 342 HR are less than many other clear non-HOFers have. In looking at his season-by-season stats, he was a consistent run producer - but never had any amazing bursts of power really. In fact, he had 8 seasons of 25-33 HR, but never more than 33. He never got higher than 4th in the MVP vote either.\r\n\r\nPlus, as a Cub, he has no post-season heroics to pad his resume.\r\n\r\nI tend to weigh a player\'s number of all-star appearances and gold-glove awards more than others do I think. I consider those an approximation (not perfect, but a good rough estimate) of the quality of the player because it involves comparing him with his co-temporaries -- his true peers-of-the-day. Here Santo is strong: 9-time All-Star, and 5 Gold Gloves. \r\n\r\nI\'ll admit though, without his long broadcasting career adding to his resume, I might not support him for the HOF. I think that helps tips the scales in his favor -- as it certainly does with Joe Torre (managing career in his case).'); return false;">Quote</a></div> I can’t comment on his self-promotion for the HOF, because I’m actually not that familiar with it.

I assume most people who have not supported Santo have done so because his career numbers don’t scream HOF. A .277 average is pretty low for HOFer, and 342 HR are less than many other clear non-HOFers have. In looking at his season-by-season stats, he was a consistent run producer – but never had any amazing bursts of power really. In fact, he had 8 seasons of 25-33 HR, but never more than 33. He never got higher than 4th in the MVP vote either.

Plus, as a Cub, he has no post-season heroics to pad his resume.

I tend to weigh a player’s number of all-star appearances and gold-glove awards more than others do I think. I consider those an approximation (not perfect, but a good rough estimate) of the quality of the player because it involves comparing him with his co-temporaries — his true peers-of-the-day. Here Santo is strong: 9-time All-Star, and 5 Gold Gloves.

I’ll admit though, without his long broadcasting career adding to his resume, I might not support him for the HOF. I think that helps tips the scales in his favor — as it certainly does with Joe Torre (managing career in his case).

Reply – Quote
]]> By: beastie978 http://seamheads.com/2008/10/12/on-the-ten-post-1942-old-timers-nominated-for-the-hof/comment-page-1/#comment-3772 beastie978 Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:27:23 +0000 http://seamheads.com/blog/2008/10/12/on-the-ten-post-1942-old-timers-nominated-for-the-hof/#comment-3772 Just curious, what's your take on why Ron Santo has never made it previously? Do you think he hurt himself with all the self-promotion for HOF induction?<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('3772','beastie978'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('3772','beastie978','Just curious, what\'s your take on why Ron Santo has never made it previously? Do you think he hurt himself with all the self-promotion for HOF induction?'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Just curious, what’s your take on why Ron Santo has never made it previously? Do you think he hurt himself with all the self-promotion for HOF induction?
Reply – Quote
]]>