Posted by bad_luck on 1/8/2014 2:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 1/8/2014 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Were his stats going to change somehow to give him more consideration? Or was someone going to invent some new stat to give his career more credence?

Have you always been a dick? Or am I confusing you with someone else on here who used to be reasonable?

Look at Tim Raines, for example. We know now that he was roughly as valuable as Tony Gwynn. But because fans (and writers) loved BA and ignored OBP, Gwynn was a first ballot Hall of Famer and Raines is still fighting to get 50% of the vote. Hopefully he'll get it eventually because we have improved our understanding of the game.

Not saying that Lofton deserves to be in like Raines does, but he's borderline. And if we come to understand things better and realize that he deserves to be in, he can't be elected because he fell off the ballot.

I've always been a dick, ask my wife.

I just don't get how his stats can all of a sudden get better and deserve consideration. I guess I'm just dumb.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/8/2014 3:14:00 PM (view original):
LOL @ Raines dropping 6% and Edgar dropping 10% in voting results.

Anyone who didn't vote for them are obviously idiots.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/8/2014 2:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/8/2014 1:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by byeags25 on 1/8/2014 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/8/2014 12:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by byeags25 on 1/8/2014 12:08:00 PM (view original):
I normally try and stay away from these conversations, but I just don't understand the logic behind this.  If a difference of 1 over the course of a season isn't big, then how is a difference of 15-20 over the course of a 20 year career big?  It's the exact same thing.  The player with the higher number was worth 15-20 more wins over the course of their career, or 1 win per season (assuming both players played 20 seasons of course)

WAR is inexact. It's three components (offense, defense, and baserunning) measured in runs and then translated to wins above a theoretical replacement level.

It doesn't make sense to insist on it being exact, like 3.4 being measurably different than 3.1. Instead you round off. But, over 20 years, a 15 or 20 win difference is significant.

I understand what WAR is.  What I don't understand is the logic that over 1 year, a difference of 1 WAR is insignificant, but over 20 years, a difference of 20 WAR (1 per season) is significant

David Ortiz hit 30 home runs this year and Prince Fielder hit 25. To me, a 5 home run difference in one year is not much of a difference. But over 20 years? That's 100 home runs. A big difference.

So, if a player is insignificantly better over a long period of time, he should be in the HOF while the other is ignored?

And that's not counting the sketchy dWAR that factors in.

????

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/8/2014 12:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/8/2014 11:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/8/2014 10:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/8/2014 10:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/8/2014 10:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/8/2014 10:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/8/2014 9:40:00 AM (view original):
Is it safe to assume BL is using WAR?    If so, there are half a dozen within 10%(and I believe BL has used 30% as a rough number for "meaningless") range of Raines.    I also believe BL has said dWAR is somewhat questionable.    If both of these hold true, Raines might be 5th or 15th.    Just eyeballing the stats, he's no better than 10th or so. 

I never said anything about 30% being meaningless. I said you should round WAR to the nearest whole number. Ignore the number after the decimal. So instead of 69.1, Raines is 69. Gwynn gets rounded up to 69. Duke Snider gets rounded up to 67. Joe DiMaggio down to 78. Etc.

I don't keep a file with your posts in it like you do mine but, yeah, you did.    Something to the effect of the difference between a single season WAR of 3.8 was not significantly different than a single season of 3.1.

You round and the difference is 1. But a difference of one isn't big. 3.1 and 3.4 are essentially the same. Like 3.6 and 3.9.

So, over a 20 year career, a difference of say 15-18 is rather meaningless?

No. That's meaningful.

If I hit 38 home runs last year and you hit 34, the difference between us in terms of home power last year is negligible. But over twenty years, I might have 80 or 100 more home runs than you. And that's a significant difference.

How so?  


Player A has a career WAR of 69.   He played 20 seasons.   3.45 wins per season.
Player B has a career WAR of 54,   He also played 20 seasons.  2.7 wins per season.

Now that .75 WAR per season is pretty meaningless.   Less than 1 win per season.
Yet, somehow, over 20 seasons, those less than 1 win per season becomes significant. 

And that's ignoring the effect of dWAR which none of us seem to trust. 

?????

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/8/2014 3:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/8/2014 3:14:00 PM (view original):
LOL @ Raines dropping 6% and Edgar dropping 10% in voting results.

Anyone who didn't vote for them are obviously idiots.

Guys, the ones who voted for them last year likely had them as their 8th, 9th, 10th picks or whatever.  Add Maddux, Glavine and Thomas, and away they go.

For example, had I had a pick, Edgar wouldn't have gotten my vote for this reason, despite him getting one from me the year before.

Posted by burnsy483 on 1/8/2014 3:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/8/2014 3:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/8/2014 3:14:00 PM (view original):
LOL @ Raines dropping 6% and Edgar dropping 10% in voting results.

Anyone who didn't vote for them are obviously idiots.

Guys, the ones who voted for them last year likely had them as their 8th, 9th, 10th picks or whatever.  Add Maddux, Glavine and Thomas, and away they go.

For example, had I had a pick, Edgar wouldn't have gotten my vote for this reason, despite him getting one from me the year before.

Then maybe they're just not HOF material. 

I understand your opinion.  Just making the point that people didn't "come to their senses" or anything...if you voted for 10 guys last year, and wanted to vote for the 3 that got in this year, people had to go off your ballot. 

Isn't it possible that some of them actually did come to their senses?  Have a 'WTF?" epiphany moment?

Posted by tecwrg on 1/8/2014 3:59:00 PM (view original):
Isn't it possible that some of them actually did come to their senses?  Have a 'WTF?" epiphany moment?

Isn't it also possible that MikeT broke into their houses and held a gun to their heads when they filled out and mailed their ballots?

The most likely explanation for the drop in support is the crowded ballot.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/8/2014 3:59:00 PM (view original):
Isn't it possible that some of them actually did come to their senses?  Have a 'WTF?" epiphany moment?

Generally, it seems to go the other way.  

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/8/2014 3:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/8/2014 3:14:00 PM (view original):
LOL @ Raines dropping 6% and Edgar dropping 10% in voting results.

Anyone who didn't vote for them are obviously idiots.

How did that "Piazza's a lock and Thomas is borderline" thing work out for you?

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/8/2014 3:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/8/2014 12:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/8/2014 11:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/8/2014 10:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/8/2014 10:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/8/2014 10:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/8/2014 10:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/8/2014 9:40:00 AM (view original):
Is it safe to assume BL is using WAR?    If so, there are half a dozen within 10%(and I believe BL has used 30% as a rough number for "meaningless") range of Raines.    I also believe BL has said dWAR is somewhat questionable.    If both of these hold true, Raines might be 5th or 15th.    Just eyeballing the stats, he's no better than 10th or so. 

I never said anything about 30% being meaningless. I said you should round WAR to the nearest whole number. Ignore the number after the decimal. So instead of 69.1, Raines is 69. Gwynn gets rounded up to 69. Duke Snider gets rounded up to 67. Joe DiMaggio down to 78. Etc.

I don't keep a file with your posts in it like you do mine but, yeah, you did.    Something to the effect of the difference between a single season WAR of 3.8 was not significantly different than a single season of 3.1.

You round and the difference is 1. But a difference of one isn't big. 3.1 and 3.4 are essentially the same. Like 3.6 and 3.9.

So, over a 20 year career, a difference of say 15-18 is rather meaningless?

No. That's meaningful.

If I hit 38 home runs last year and you hit 34, the difference between us in terms of home power last year is negligible. But over twenty years, I might have 80 or 100 more home runs than you. And that's a significant difference.

How so?  


Player A has a career WAR of 69.   He played 20 seasons.   3.45 wins per season.
Player B has a career WAR of 54,   He also played 20 seasons.  2.7 wins per season.

Now that .75 WAR per season is pretty meaningless.   Less than 1 win per season.
Yet, somehow, over 20 seasons, those less than 1 win per season becomes significant. 

And that's ignoring the effect of dWAR which none of us seem to trust. 

?????

BL refusing to defend his indefensible position is always funny.

I assume he knows I'll throw out some examples of no-doubter HOFers(according to him), those who deserves strong consideration(according to him) and those who should only get into the HOF after paying admission(according to him).    Or he can't figure out which examples I might use.  So I'll ask again.

If a player is insignificantly better each season, how does he become significantly better than the other guy over the course of a career?

I don't think it's indefensible. In one season, a WAR difference of .4 or .7 isn't a big deal. Over an entire career, a WAR difference of 15 or 20 wins matters.

A smaller difference, say 6 or 7 wins over an entire career might not. Players that close together require further review.

Or, maybe, just perhaps, WAR is a pretty stupid way to evaluate players.

Nope. It's a good starting point for just about any evaluation of a player.