Salon's Kaufman accuses Kindred of 'ignorance'

Fantastic. Baseball geeks are responsible for the Depression.

 

One example: The newer look at statistics shows that Tim Raines was a far better player than Lou Brock, who, compiler of steals and singles aside, is a marginal Hall of Famer. Better base stealer, better on-base percentage, more power and far fewer outs. Yet Raines has an uphill climb, whereas Brock passed some writers' eye tests. No, it's not the Hall of Stats, but for players whose credentials aren't obvious, looking at all relevant numbers is worthwhile.

 

With all due respect, Buck, my hunch is that two people threw HOF votes at Jay Bell just because they enjoyed covering him or wanted to thank him in this goofy way or thought maybe they could keep his name on the ballot beyond a one-and-done. They were gaming the system, but I highly doubt they thought he was deserving of the Hall of Fame. Same with those who neglected voting for Henderson -- doubt they considered him unworthy, but they were protecting the sanctity of non-unanimity or Tom Seaver's percentage or some such. They surely understood he was going to get in anyway, and were gaming the system at the other end.

No one was horribly mistaken for lack of using the proper statistical tools.

If the HOF didn't want the Jay Bells of the game to get votes, it wouldn't allow them on the ballot, establishing some stat minimums. If it wanted the Rickey Hendersons to be automatic, it wouldn't subject them to a vote, establishing some mandatory thresholds (rankings in key categories, absolute totals). The way it is, it's an imperfect system that allows for intangibles, unquantifiables, eyeballs and, yes, mistakes.

It's almost like the old Olympic scoring system where you throw out the high and the low scores and go with the ones in between. You can make it to Cooperstown, after all, with one out of every four voters absolutely convinced that you do not belong.

 

jay bell might be a nice guy, but he--like numerous others--shouldn't even be on the ballot.

 

It's just a way to measure each player at a position against what the typical 32nd-best player at that position in baseball would produce? How is that so "arbitrary"?

I truly believe that the biggest problem people have with the VORP stat is its name. Because it sounds nerdy and geeky and trekkie-like and therefore easy to make fun of by all the cool MFs who became sports writers.

That being said, I have no problem debating the merits of statistical metrics - whether it's VORP or batting average. It's the vitriol spewed about their very existence that mystifies me.

 

Waylon, I agree with you that VORP's name is a problem for the stat. But hey, who's a Phillies fan to complain about dumb names in baseball? My problem is that I don't think a numerical expression of the idea "how much better is he than a fringe player?" is very helpful to me.
Editude and BuckW are right. Stats are necessary in evaluating players, particularly players of the past, who by definition we can't watch play. I don't know any Hall voters who don't use at least SOME stats in filling out their ballots. The question is, how far do you take the process. If you're using a whole raft of newer stats to assess a candidate, he is probably one of the debatable choices (not incorrect, like Jay Bell, just debatable pro or con).
And NOTHING, not stats, memory, or voices from archangels, is going to resolve Hall of Fame debates.

 

What the stats are trying to do is objectively determine a player's value over time, and it makes sense that the longer a player plays, the more the stats should be a good indicator of his worth. I don't have a real problem with applying them to HOF debates. The stats themselves aren't "new," just newly applied. The beauty of baseball is that you can apply the same measures to Alex Rodriguez that you could to Honus Wagner. The Holy Grail is trying to figure out how players contribute to their teams' wins and to what degree.

I do think it gets ridiculous when you get seamheads making for of the '03 Marlins or '05 White Sox because they were "lucky" to win the World Series. Or discounting postseason performance in HOF debates because it's "luck" and "too small a sample size." At some point, you have to take at face value what an individual or team accomplished on the field.

In my world, sabermetrics are most effective as a predictor of future performance, and some of their concepts are fairly easy - K/BB ratios for pitchers, for example, or hitters' contact rates.

Are Adam Dunn's strikeouts balanced out by his run production? That's an interesting debate that I welcome sabermetrics into. Sabermetrics aren't going to solve Dunn's mechanics. But they may tell you whether the mechanics really need to be tinkered with after all.

And, most importantly, they can objectively help teams determine how much to spend on a free agent or offer in arbitration. Now, if a trusted scout comes along and says, "Dude may have had a 5.00 ERA last year, but it was a fluke - if we can get him to pitch inside, he'll be a different guy," that's when you override the statistical stuff. It's all a matter of obtaining as much information, objective and subjective, as you can to make decisions.

 

LOUD NOISES!

 

But you can't. Just like in football, the eras are too different. A .300, 30 HR season was great in Jim Rice's day but pretty average in Barry Bonds' day. A 3.50 ERA was crap when Bob Gibson pitched, not so bad in the '90s.

 

Yes, you can. It's called ERA+. It weighs ERAs against those of their contemporaries.

Carry on.

 

Arrrrrgh.

 

Yes. As long as you aren't trying to purport facts based on it.