HoF Predictors and Maddux in the HoF

HoF Predictors and Maddux in the HoF

Post by Dan Szymbors » Wed, 12 Nov 1997 04:00:00




Quote:
> I've seen it bantered about that Greg Maddux does not have the portfolio to be
>  a first ballot HoFer.  I'd like to take the chance to dispute that using Bill
>  James' Hall of Fame Predictor point system.  He says that 135+ points is a
>  "lock" for the HoF and this is where Maddux stands as of the conclusion of the
>  1997 campaign.

Who's saying that Maddux isn't a first-ballot Hall of Famer?  I would
question their sanity.  Maddux and Clemens are the two best pitchers of
this era and both pass the "Bus Test" (if Maddux and Clemens were hit by
a bus today, they'd still make the Hall of Fame).  It's good that you
used the Bill James system, but methinks the types that would question
Maddux being in the Hall are the same people who think "stats suck"

<snip>

--
Dan Szymborski--Founder of the Doug Mientkiewicz Fan Club

Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity.  
? Martin Luther King, Jr.  

 
 
 

HoF Predictors and Maddux in the HoF

Post by Sarcasm Is A Way Of Lif » Wed, 12 Nov 1997 04:00:00


Quote:
>I've seen it bantered about that Greg Maddux does not have the portfolio to be
> a first ballot HoFer.  

Among folks still in hiding because they think WWII is still going on?

Greg

 
 
 

HoF Predictors and Maddux in the HoF

Post by Madduxb » Wed, 12 Nov 1997 04:00:00

I've seen it bantered about that Greg Maddux does not have the portfolio to be
 a first ballot HoFer.  I'd like to take the chance to dispute that using Bill
 James' Hall of Fame Predictor point system.  He says that 135+ points is a
 "lock" for the HoF and this is where Maddux stands as of the conclusion of the
 1997 campaign.

Seasonal Stats

2 pts for each season of 15-17 wins = 8 pts.
4 times: 1990, 91, 94, 96

4 pts for each season of 18-19 wins = 16 pts.
4 times: 1988, 89, 95, 97

6 pts for each season of 20-22 wins = 12 pts.
2 times: 1992, 93

2 pts for each season with a .700+ W% and 14+ wins = 6 pts.
3 times: 1994, 95, 97

1 pt for each season with an ERA of 2.99 or less = 5 pts.
5 times: 1989, 92, 93, 96, 97

4 pts for each season with an ERA of 1.99 or less = 8 pts.
2 times: 1994, 95

2 pts for each season as ERA leader = 6 pts.
3 times: 1993, 94, 95

1 pt for league leader in Wins = 3 pts.
3 times: 1992, 94, 95

1 pt for league leader in Innings Pitched = 5 pts.
5 times: 1991 thru 1995

1 pt for league leader in W% = 2 pts.
2 times: 1995, 97

.5 pt for league leader in Complete Games = 1.5 pts.
3 times: 1993 thru 1995

Total Points for Seasonal Stats = 72.5

Career Stats

8 points for 175 to 199 wins  (184 wins thru 1997)
5 points for W% of .625+ (.630 W% thru 1997)
10 points for ERA of 2.99 or less  (2.81 thru 1997)

Total Points for Career Stats = 23

Awards

5 points for each Cy Young Award = 20 pts
4 times: 1992-96

3 points for each All-Star selection = 18 pts
6 times: 1989, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97

1 point for each Gold Glove = 8 pts
8 times: 1990-97

Total points for awards = 46

Post Season

1 point for each League Playoff Win = 6 pts
1993 (1), 1995 (2), 1996 (2), 1997 (1)

2 points for each World Series start = 8 pts
1995 (2), 1996 (2)

2 points for each World Series win = 4 pts
1995,96

Total Points for Post Season = 18

Grand Total = 159.5 points

In short, Maddux has enough points for HoF induction right now.  He figures to
 add a minimum of 15 to 20 points in seasonal and career points, and probably
 an equal number of awards/post-seasonal points before he's through.

Peace,

MSM

 
 
 

HoF Predictors and Maddux in the HoF

Post by Jstu » Thu, 13 Nov 1997 04:00:00

Quote:
>I've seen it bantered about that Greg Maddux does not have the
> portfolio to be a first ballot HoFer.

By whom?

Unless he bets on baseball, or does something strange, he will make it easily
 in his first year.

Clemens as well.

But after that the pitching well becomes thin. Eckersley comes to mind... but
 who else that is active?

I wrote something up this last winter on this. I do remember Clemens and Maddux
 were locks before this season began. Eck I believe so as well. Ah... Lee
 Smith.

After that... Randy Johnson is well on his way, though he started late. Some
 other guys like Cone and Gooden had good credentials.

jls

 
 
 

HoF Predictors and Maddux in the HoF

Post by Jonathan Bernste » Fri, 14 Nov 1997 04:00:00




: > I'm not arguing that he won't (or wouldn't now) make it, but as you know
: > players are not inducted to the HoF on points but rather on ballots by
: > sportswriters. James' index is therefore not dispositive and there is
: > really no such thing as "enough points for HoF induction."

: But James devised this system to reflect how the sportswriters vote.

Is this correct?  I had thought it was based on all inductees, not just
the sportswriters vote.  

: The values he assigns to certain acheivements reflect the value that
: the sportwriters (as a whole) assign to those acheivements.  If the
: voting in the past had gone differently, James would assign the values
: differently.

OTOH, it's hardly definitive.  The nature of the exercise precludes that;
there are far more variables than observations, so at best James is making
an educated guess about which things actually counted.  (Not that I'm
criticizing; my own NL MVP predictor has the same, necessary, flaw).

: The main assumption here is that the sportwriters will continue to
: vote as they have in the past.  I've seen no evidence that they're
: getting any smarter . . .

No, but they could have changed, anyway.  The MVP voters of the 1970s
weren't any smarter than those of the 1940s, but they had much different
standards for the award.  The James HOF predictor assumes constant
preferences among voters, which is a highly questionable proposition.

JHB

 
 
 

HoF Predictors and Maddux in the HoF

Post by Roger Moo » Fri, 14 Nov 1997 04:00:00

Quote:


>>I've seen it bantered about that Greg Maddux does not have the portfolio to be
>> a first ballot HoFer.  I'd like to take the chance to dispute that using Bill
>> James' Hall of Fame Predictor point system.  He says that 135+ points is a
>> "lock" for the HoF and this is where Maddux stands as of the conclusion of the
>> 1997 campaign.
>Remember also that being a 'lock' for the HoF and being a first-ballot
>HoFer are two different things.  Case in point: Phil Niekro and Don
>Sutton were both 300 game winners with plenty of HoF points.  It took
>Niekro five years; Sutton's still waiting.

Of course neither of those two came close to Maddux's level of ***.
Maddux's 1994-95 were good enough that people were digging up comparisons
with Koufax's 1965-66 and Johnson's 1918-19.  One of the big points that
James makes in his book on the HOF is that the voters are much more
impressed by players who have some monster seasons than they are by guys
who put up good but not great numbers for a long time.  Maddux's four
consecutive Cy Young awards (four more than Niekro and Sutton combined)
display a level of *** few pitchers have ever reached.  That's first
ballot material.

--

Master of Meaningless Trivia       (626) 585-0144
                                   http://SportToday.org/~raj/

 
 
 

HoF Predictors and Maddux in the HoF

Post by Doug Ribl » Sat, 15 Nov 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

>I would be more curious to see who was/is the
>third best pitcher in this era and see what their chances to HOF are.  My
>guess is something like Cone, Glavine and Johnson with Appier, Mussina and
>Gooden following behind.  (relievers don't count)

Gooden and Johnson both have too few great seasons and too many
average seasons to qualify.  Jose Rijo had an impressive run before
the injury.  Cone, Saberhagen and Viola were/have been occasionally
brilliant but inconsistent.  Glavine and Cone would probably rank
4th and 5th on my list.

Right now, I'd go with Appier at #3.  Over the last eight seasons,
he has averaged nearly +30 PR/A, and his *worst* showing was +16.  
Has his career to date been Hall of Fame caliber?  Absolutely,
though I fear he'll end up the Tim Raines of pitchers.

-----------------------------------------

  http://www.sit.wisc.edu/~dbriblet/

 
 
 

HoF Predictors and Maddux in the HoF

Post by Madduxb » Sun, 16 Nov 1997 04:00:00

Quote:
>Where would Orel Hershiser rank on your list?  Before LaSorda blew his arm
>out, he had 5 truly excellent seasons (with '86 being the exception in the
>'84-'89 stretch), and even after the injury, he has been no worse than
>average.

According to TB5, through the 1996 season, using TPI as the measuring stick,
 this is how currently active pitchers rank:

Clemens
Maddux
(Eckersley)
Hershiser
Saberhagen
Cone
Glavine
Rijo
Appier
Smoltz
Candiotti
R. Johnson
J. McDowell

The 1997 season won't change the position of #1 and 2, except to push them
 farther ahead of the field.  Similarly, positions 3-12 won't change much,
 except that the Unit will move past Candiotti and Smoltz, and be within
 striking distance of Appier and Rijo.  Pedro Martinez should crack the top 12.
  Going into 1997, his TPI was 5.5, and I'd expect that his 1997 TPI will be
 ~6.0, moving him past McDowell.  At 26 years of age, Pedro could be in a
 position to crack the top 30 before he's thirty.  I know that TPI is not the
 perfect measurement, but it does give a fairly non-biased ranking.  

On another front, it would seem that both Clemens and Maddux will be knocking
 onthe door of the all-time top 10 in TPI after their 1997 seasons.  Clemens
 ranked 12th with a TPI of 40.9 and Maddux ranked 16th at 39.1.  I'd expect
 that Clemens and Maddux will move ahead of Ed Walsh (43.3) and Bob Gibson
 (44.0), currently 10th and 11th all-time.  Another season like '97 and they
 can move past Spahn, Seaver, and John Clarkson.  It's not beyond the realm of
 possiblity that Maddux has enough quality years remaining to move past Clemens
 and push into the top 5.  However, it would mean that he would need to perform
 at or near current levels for another 4 to 5 years.  I don't know that Clemens
 has enough left to move much higher than 7th all-time.......

Peace,

MB

 
 
 

HoF Predictors and Maddux in the HoF

Post by Sarcasm Is A Way Of Lif » Tue, 18 Nov 1997 04:00:00

I always go back to my raw rating system, which judges pitchers based
on their IP and adjusted ERA.  Its not perfect, but I like the results.

The system ranks current pitchers this way.

1. Clemens
2. Maddux
3. Appier
4. Saberhagen
5. Cone
6. Key    
7. Hershiser
8. Rijo
9. Gooden
10. Glavine

The full list of post-45 pitchers is below.  Again, I'll note that
this a raw system based on points which have no real meaning except
to give pitchers credit for how well and how much they pitched,
trying to compromise between peak and career values.

1. Clemens     51.5
2. Seaver      46.5
3. Maddux      43.5
4. Gibson      40.5
5. G. Perry    39.5
6. Palmer      38.5
7. P. Niekro   37.5
8. Carlton     36
9. Koufax      34.5
9. Appier      34.5
11. Ryan       33.5
12. Jenkins    33
13. Drysdale   31.5
14. Marichal   31
15. Sutton     30.5
16. Stieb      30.5
17. Saberhagen 29
18. John       28
19. Bunning    27.5
20. Cone       26.5
21. Key        26.5
22. R. Reuschel26
23. Hershiser  25
24. Kaat       24
24. Messersmith24
26. Koosman    23.5
26. L. Jackson 23.5
26. L. Tiant   23.5
26. Rijo       23.5
30. S. Rogers  22.5
31. Langston   21.5  
32. Hough      20.5
32. D Martinez 20.5
34. Tanana     19.5
34. Viola      19.5
36. Pappas     19
37. Matlack    18.5
37. Blue       18.5
37. Gooden     18.5
40. M. Stottlemyre 18
41. Wood       18
42. Morris     17.5
43. J. Perry   16.5
43. Cuellar    16.5
43. S. Mcdowell16.5
43. Glavine    16.5
47.***ch     16
48. Welch      15

All-Time Greats

1. Walter Johnson    72.5
1. Cy Young          72.5
3. Lefty Grove       61.5
4. Kid Nichols       60
5. Pete Alexander    56
6. Christy Mathewson 55.5
7. Ed Walsh          52.5
8. John Clarkson     52
9. Tim Keefe         47
10. Mordecai Brown   46
11. Amos Rusie       43.5
12. Carl Hubbell     42
12. Whitey Ford      42
14. Warren Spahn     40

Greg

 
 
 

HoF Predictors and Maddux in the HoF

Post by Michael Wolverto » Tue, 18 Nov 1997 04:00:00

Quote:


> > I always go back to my raw rating system, which judges pitchers based
> > on their IP and adjusted ERA.  Its not perfect, but I like the results.

> [SNIP PITCHERS]

> > Again, I'll note that
> > this a raw system based on points which have no real meaning except
> > to give pitchers credit for how well and how much they pitched,
> > trying to compromise between peak and career values.

> In what other terms would you try to rate them for the purpose of HoF
> induction, and why? I would've thought how well a pitcher peformed and
> how much of that perfroming he did would be what one would want to ask
> as the relevant questions for HoF selection.

Yes, but the issues that distinguish the rating systems are

(1) what do you mean by "how well a pitcher performed"?  and/or

(2) how do you weight the rate of performance vs. the length of
    performance in determining the overall rating?

To pick one name that looks misplaced in Greg's list: If Kevin Appier
woke up tomorrow and discovered he could no longer pitch (most likely
scenario: Bob Boone breaks into his house and personally saws off
Appier's right arm), do we really rate Appier as great a pitcher as
HOFer Sandy Koufax, and greater than HOFers Fergie Jenkins, Don
Drysdale, Juan Marichal, and Jim Bunning, and likely HOFers Nolan Ryan
and Don Sutton?  If you change the weighting of rate vs. length in
Greg's system, then Appier will move down (or up) significantly in the
rankings.

-Michael
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wolverton                       "Is that clear?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

HoF Predictors and Maddux in the HoF

Post by Michael Wolvert » Tue, 18 Nov 1997 04:00:00


Quote:

>> If everyone's career ended today, I'd rank the also-ran starters
>> roughly: Key, Hershiser, Saberhagen, Cone, Langston, Finley, Appier,
>> Glavine, Candiotti, Gooden, Johnson, Brown, Smoltz, Mussina.
>>[...]

>How does Eck rank as a starter?

He switched from starting to relieving in 1987, and his stats through
'86 give him 105 APR in 2496 IP.  That would put him about fourth from
last on my list above, below everyone except Brown, Smoltz, and
Mussina.  He clearly doesn't make it into the HOF based solely on his
years as a starter, but those years make a nice bonus to his
incredible run as a closer.

-Michael

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wolverton                       "Is that clear?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

HoF Predictors and Maddux in the HoF

Post by Sarcasm Is A Way Of Lif » Tue, 18 Nov 1997 04:00:00


Quote:

>> I always go back to my raw rating system, which judges pitchers based
>> on their IP and adjusted ERA.  Its not perfect, but I like the results.

>> The full list of post-45 pitchers is below.  Again, I'll note that
>> this a raw system based on points which have no real meaning except
>> to give pitchers credit for how well and how much they pitched,
>> trying to compromise between peak and career values.

>[List deleted]
>Greg, Bert Blyleven didn't show up on your list.  He's gotta be higher
>than #48 Bob Welch in your measure.

Yup.  And I corrected that last time I used the list, but it didn't
make it into the file apparently.

The top of the list reads:

1. Clemens     51.5
2. Seaver      46.5
3. Maddux      43.5
4. Gibson      40.5
5. G. Perry    39.5
6. Palmer      38.5
7. P. Niekro   37.5
8. Blyleven    36.5
9. Carlton     36
10. Koufax      34.5
10. Appier     *34.5
12. Ryan       33.5
13. Jenkins    33
14. Drysdale   31.5
15. Marichal   31

 I'd guess he rates somewhere around

Quote:
>#4 or #5 among the post-45-ers.  Robin Roberts probably belongs in the
>top 48 as well.

I meant to say post-60 pitchers.

Greg

 
 
 

HoF Predictors and Maddux in the HoF

Post by Sarcasm Is A Way Of Lif » Tue, 18 Nov 1997 04:00:00


Quote:

>> I always go back to my raw rating system, which judges pitchers based
>> on their IP and adjusted ERA.  Its not perfect, but I like the results.
>[SNIP PITCHERS]
>> Again, I'll note that
>> this a raw system based on points which have no real meaning except
>> to give pitchers credit for how well and how much they pitched,
>> trying to compromise between peak and career values.
>In what other terms would you try to rate them for the purpose of HoF
>induction, and why? I would've thought how well a pitcher peformed and
>how much of that perfroming he did would be what one would want to ask
>as the relevant questions for HoF selection.

As usual, Jon, I'm not quite sure what you're asking, so I'll answer both
possibilities:

When I say the points have no real meaning, its because of the intermediary
nature of the points.  A better, more complicated system would use the
same factors (well, I'd use RA, not ERA) but do it in a way that engages
the data directly and does not arbitrarily appoint point values to certain
accomplishments  (the system gives 1.5 points for every 250 ip above 1500,
and 1 point for every percentage point their career adjusted ERA is better
than average).

The other relevant point is related.  Given that we are using a raw,
basic point system, how is it determined what the balance between the
"how much" and "how well."  I determined mthe balance I would use by
using my common sense and by polling some rsb'ers on which balance
seemed most appropriate.  Neither of these methods are really "tried and
true" for determining such things.  In my point of view, I was trying
to form a measure that would embrace both the Sandy Koufax kind
of greatness and the Nolan Ryan kind of greatness.  But that aim is
a very subjective one.

Anyway, I hope I've touched on what you're asking about.

Greg

Quote:
>Jon Avins
>GO METS!!!!

 
 
 

HoF Predictors and Maddux in the HoF

Post by Sarcasm Is A Way Of Lif » Tue, 18 Nov 1997 04:00:00


Quote:
>To pick one name that looks misplaced in Greg's list: If Kevin Appier
>woke up tomorrow and discovered he could no longer pitch (most likely
>scenario: Bob Boone breaks into his house and personally saws off
>Appier's right arm), do we really rate Appier as great a pitcher as
>HOFer Sandy Koufax, and greater than HOFers Fergie Jenkins, Don
>Drysdale, Juan Marichal, and Jim Bunning, and likely HOFers Nolan Ryan
>and Don Sutton?  If you change the weighting of rate vs. length in
>Greg's system, then Appier will move down (or up) significantly in the
>rankings.

Well, Appier's place is certainly the most surising to others on the list.
And I'm of two minds on this.  First, the list isn't really meant to rate
players in their prime, but players who have at least hit their primes
and fallen down somewhat.  I tend to think of Appier's place on the list
as a predictor rather than a conclusion.

However, that begs the hit by a bus question.  And the reality is that
Appier in many ways has already had an awesome career, one that has gone
almost totally unrecognized because he's on KC.  No, I wouldn't say
he's a Hall of Famer now, but if he stays at that level for another 3 years,
I'd have to say yes.

Greg