|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Mar 20, 2018 10:29:20 GMT -5
I think I misunderstood when players would be hitting the class, because this is actually a very weak group of players.
Giralldo Croner (59.1) is an obvious Hall of Famer
Israel Hinojosa (33.2), Casey Williams (33.1), Sean Hanson (31.8), Francisco Alvares (31.2), Fernando Ramirez (30.9) and Jason Simmons (30.2) are all legitimately good players, but all of them are south of the HoF average of the PBL. By my quick count there are 21 players in the 30-35 Hall Rating range who have been votable. Of those twenty-one, zero have been elected. I'm not saying they shouldn't get votes, but there's a lot of precedent saying they don't belong.
Pedro Chavez (27.9), Eduardo Sardina (27.4), Domingo Quintana (24.9), Kyle Scott (23.6), Antonio Garza (23.0), Jeff Perkins (21.8) and Juan Berroa (17.8) have no business in the discussion.
As far of closers, I came up with an improvised metric. I figured that a 0.7 WAR season for a closer was the equivalent of a 2.0 WAR season for anyone else. So they get no credit for 0.7 WAR or lower, and if it's higher then they get (WAR - 0.7) * 1.5. The 1.5 multiplier is to reflect the theoretical leverage that the closer generates. If we had WPA or pLI data for all of these pitchers and all their seasons, I'd use that. But we don't.
The closer ranks are:
Alfredo Vargas: 31.5 Brian Sinclair: 28.5 Jose Nunez: 27.45
Orlando Lopez: 24.45 Gary Wood: 24.15 Daron Acord: 21.3 Travis Miller: 18.75 Gregorio Cruz: 13.8
Vargas is a sure thing. I think Sinclair and Nunez make the cut.
My ballot (not meant to be persuasive) will be Croner, Vargas, Sinclair, Nunez, and that's it.
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Mar 20, 2018 10:45:48 GMT -5
Thanks! That was much easier than having to make decisions on my own.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Mar 20, 2018 11:03:43 GMT -5
Thanks for clarifying. I know that in previous years I didn't fill out a complete ballot because I didn't feel like there were 10 worthy players. That was part of my confusion by your proposal of increasing the votes up to 15, but it makes sense now based on the information you mentioned above as to why you proposed it.
|
|
|
Post by earlweaver on Mar 20, 2018 15:24:01 GMT -5
As far of closers, I came up with an improvised metric. I figured that a 0.7 WAR season for a closer was the equivalent of a 2.0 WAR season for anyone else. So they get no credit for 0.7 WAR or lower, and if it's higher then they get (WAR - 0.7) * 1.5. The 1.5 multiplier is to reflect the theoretical leverage that the closer generates. If we had WPA or pLI data for all of these pitchers and all their seasons, I'd use that. But we don't. The closer ranks are: Alfredo Vargas: 31.5 Brian Sinclair: 28.5 Jose Nunez: 27.45 Orlando Lopez: 24.45 Gary Wood: 24.15 Daron Acord: 21.3 Travis Miller: 18.75 Gregorio Cruz: 13.8 Vargas is a sure thing. I think Sinclair and Nunez make the cut. My ballot (not meant to be persuasive) will be Croner, Vargas, Sinclair, Nunez, and that's it. HERO
|
|
|
Post by Mac_Yankees GM on Mar 20, 2018 18:41:03 GMT -5
I think I misunderstood when players would be hitting the class, because this is actually a very weak group of players. Giralldo Croner (59.1) is an obvious Hall of Famer Israel Hinojosa (33.2), Casey Williams (33.1), Sean Hanson (31.8), Francisco Alvares (31.2), Fernando Ramirez (30.9) and Jason Simmons (30.2) are all legitimately good players, but all of them are south of the HoF average of the PBL. By my quick count there are 21 players in the 30-35 Hall Rating range who have been votable. Of those twenty-one, zero have been elected. I'm not saying they shouldn't get votes, but there's a lot of precedent saying they don't belong. Pedro Chavez (27.9), Eduardo Sardina (27.4), Domingo Quintana (24.9), Kyle Scott (23.6), Antonio Garza (23.0), Jeff Perkins (21.8) and Juan Berroa (17.8) have no business in the discussion. I wasn't in the league when he was playing and I know he doesn't put up the high OBP & WAR that Sabermetric fans love, but when I look at Antonio Garza I see a 7 time All Star who hit 631 homeruns and drove in 1825 runs. Is he really so unqualified that he has no business in the discussion?
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Mar 20, 2018 18:51:44 GMT -5
I think I misunderstood when players would be hitting the class, because this is actually a very weak group of players. Giralldo Croner (59.1) is an obvious Hall of Famer Israel Hinojosa (33.2), Casey Williams (33.1), Sean Hanson (31.8), Francisco Alvares (31.2), Fernando Ramirez (30.9) and Jason Simmons (30.2) are all legitimately good players, but all of them are south of the HoF average of the PBL. By my quick count there are 21 players in the 30-35 Hall Rating range who have been votable. Of those twenty-one, zero have been elected. I'm not saying they shouldn't get votes, but there's a lot of precedent saying they don't belong. Pedro Chavez (27.9), Eduardo Sardina (27.4), Domingo Quintana (24.9), Kyle Scott (23.6), Antonio Garza (23.0), Jeff Perkins (21.8) and Juan Berroa (17.8) have no business in the discussion. I wasn't in the league when he was playing and I know he doesn't put up the high OBP & WAR that Sabermetric fans love, but when I look at Antonio Garza I see a 7 time All Star who hit 631 homeruns and drove in 1825 runs. Is he really so unqualified that he has no business in the discussion? I'm with you Mac. He also put up at least 2+ WAR in 14 of 18 seasons. He is a Hall of Famer in my book. The body of work far surpasses any arbitrary system IMHO. That's why we all have a vote, which I am thankful for. All of that said, i cannot thank Oakland enough for a thoroughly insightful and fun read in his Hall of Fame thread. His work is a tremendous addition to the league.
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Mar 20, 2018 21:13:21 GMT -5
I appreciate the kind words. Garza is fascinating. Believe it or not, Garza hit more home runs per plate appearance than any player in PBL history. Including Sotan Kono. 631 homers is very respectable, but in 9k PA? Insane. He also has the 3rd highest ISO in PBL history. It is not an exaggeration to call him probably the second or third best pure power hitter the PBL has ever produced (I'm figuring Kono #1 and Nosworthy tied for 2nd with Garza). The knocks on Garza are: 1) Of the 67 PBL batters to clear 7000 PA, he is tied for third to last in walk rate. The guy didn't walk at all. Anyone who hits 290 has no business having an OBP of only 333. 2) He was not a good fielder. At his peak he was average; as he got older he got much, much worse. His glove weighs in at over -70 ZR. 3) His platoon split was super extreme. Garza hit righties at a 299 / 343 / 597 clip with an OPS+ of 153, which basically is Manny Ramirez. Against lefties, he hit 260 / 299 / 455, which was right around league average. This means he platooned a lot, rarely facing lefties and accruing only 9k total PA over his career. 9k PA in the PBL is honestly not that much, at least not for someone competing for the Hall. Combine all of this and Garza was a very good player who had one incredible skill (off the charts home run power) and one strong skill (very good contact). Give him even average patience and he'd probably be getting my vote. As it stands, his peak included not a single season above 6 WAR. Three seasons of 5 WAR is very good, but doesn't really compare to some of the other players involved (like any of the people in the second paragraph). If you want to vote in Garza because of his historically high power go for it. It truly is incredible. And furthermore, if you wanted to argue that his WAR totals are artificially lowered because he was making room for someone who hit lefties better than he did . . . i do think he should get a little credit for that. I just think that the total package falls well short of the hall, because he was quite weak in almost everything that wasn't one of his two strengths. And all of it matters. But the Hall is made of what the league thinks is important; not what I think is important, and it's better that way.
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Mar 20, 2018 21:46:17 GMT -5
2) He was not a good fielder. At his peak he was average; as he got older he got much, much worse. His glove weighs in at over -70 ZR. I have a question about how you view ZR, because there's a contextual aspect to it that just occurred to me. Say starting at age 26 or so after his first real bad year in the outfield, that GMs starting using Garza exclusively at DH. Now there's tons of real world argument about whether DH's should be held to higher standards for hall entry. But ignoring all that, the lack of negative ZR from GMs using him improperly is going to directly effect his WAR and thus is hall rating, right? Thus improving his chances at relevancy on your list. So the question I've got is, how much can you really blame a player for the ways in which GMs choose to use him? That is, does ZR measure fielding ability, or managerial common sense? Can Antonio Garza be blamed for GMs putting him in a position to fail?
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Mar 20, 2018 22:02:01 GMT -5
2) He was not a good fielder. At his peak he was average; as he got older he got much, much worse. His glove weighs in at over -70 ZR. I have a question about how you view ZR, because there's a contextual aspect to it that just occurred to me. Say starting at age 26 or so after his first real bad year in the outfield, that GMs starting using Garza exclusively at DH. Now there's tons of real world argument about whether DH's should be held to higher standards for hall entry. But ignoring all that, the lack of negative ZR from GMs using him improperly is going to directly effect his WAR and thus is hall rating, right? Thus improving his chances at relevancy on your list. So the question I've got is, how much can you really blame a player for the ways in which GMs choose to use him? That is, does ZR measure fielding ability, or managerial common sense? Can Antonio Garza be blamed for GMs putting him in a position to fail? Being moved to DH would keep his ZR from showing so negative. But replacement level is higher for DH's, so a 4 WAR batting season at LF might be a 3.2 WAR season at DH (that's a guess). So it's all pretty much a wash. If he'd been DH'd the write-up wouldn't have complained about the -70 ZR, it would have said that his glove was bad enough that he had to be DH'd early in his career which depressed his value. But it is true, a manager / team situation could hurt a player's value by playing him in a sub-optimal manner.
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Mar 20, 2018 22:44:08 GMT -5
I have a question about how you view ZR, because there's a contextual aspect to it that just occurred to me. Say starting at age 26 or so after his first real bad year in the outfield, that GMs starting using Garza exclusively at DH. Now there's tons of real world argument about whether DH's should be held to higher standards for hall entry. But ignoring all that, the lack of negative ZR from GMs using him improperly is going to directly effect his WAR and thus is hall rating, right? Thus improving his chances at relevancy on your list. So the question I've got is, how much can you really blame a player for the ways in which GMs choose to use him? That is, does ZR measure fielding ability, or managerial common sense? Can Antonio Garza be blamed for GMs putting him in a position to fail? Being moved to DH would keep his ZR from showing so negative. But replacement level is higher for DH's, so a 4 WAR batting season at LF might be a 3.2 WAR season at DH (that's a guess). So it's all pretty much a wash. If he'd been DH'd the write-up wouldn't have complained about the -70 ZR, it would have said that his glove was bad enough that he had to be DH'd early in his career which depressed his value. But it is true, a manager / team situation could hurt a player's value by playing him in a sub-optimal manner. Yeah. The DH argument probably isn't a good one. Though I've seen a lot of outfielders forced onto, like, second base when they shouldn't be. Anyway, WAR adjustments by position do help.
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Mar 21, 2018 9:57:09 GMT -5
Thanks for clarifying. I know that in previous years I didn't fill out a complete ballot because I didn't feel like there were 10 worthy players. That was part of my confusion by your proposal of increasing the votes up to 15, but it makes sense now based on the information you mentioned above as to why you proposed it. Honestly, I was just reacting to the fact that it seemed like a lot of Hall-Worthy players weren't inducted, and I assumed that more spots on the ballot would fix the problem. If it's just a lack of people voting, obviously there's no point in the change.
|
|