A New Twist On The Hall of Fame

Earlier today Dan posed a question on here asking people’s opinions on PED’s and the Hall of Fame. In his post he proposed the example of Rafael Palmeiro as a player with a Hall of Fame caliber career, but with a failed steroid test. In my response I said that it is irrelevant to me if a player used performance, but I would not vote for Palmeiro simply because I do not believe he was a good enough player. This led many people to question me and my thought process. I explained to them that in my opinion longevity is a very small portion of a players case for Cooperstown. I thought that although Palmeiro had an undoubtedly great career, he was not an elite player for any duration of his time as a Major Leaguer.  This led me to start analyzing internally what is a HOFer in my opinion. To me it is a player that proved he was truly great for many seasons.

I have conducted a new type of Hall. This in no way is a complete list of who I would have as Hall of Fame inductees. My basis for this Hall of Fame is to find players that were well enough above league average for a long enough time to be considered great. The methodology is simple. The general consensus is that a player with a WAR of 6 in a year is at the very worst a legitimate All-Star worthy player that season. I have found every player since 1901 whom has had a season of at least 6 WAR. From there I have taken all of their seasons at this benchmark. After that I have counted the total number in said seasons above 6. For example, Mike Trout last year had a 10.9 WAR according to Baseball Reference, and in this scenario he would receive 4.9 points last year, for having a WAR 4.9 above 6. This year he has a WAR of 7.7 giving him 1.7 points. Adding those together he has a total “WAR above 6” number of 6.6. I determined that a total “WAR above 6” number of 12 is worthy of spot in the All Peak Hall of Fame. Amazingly, Trout is over half way there, and he is not even through his 2nd full season. Also of note, Palmeiro’s number is 1.2, nowhere near the cutoff for this list.

The list after the break.

Batters(in no order)

Barry Bonds, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Babe Ruth, Tris Speaker, Mike Schmidt, Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, Stan Musial, Lou Gehrig, Rogers Hornsby, Honus Wagner, Alex Rodriguez, Mickey Mantle, Eddie Collins, Albert Pujols, Rickey Henderson, Eddie Mathews, Wade Boggs, Roberto Clemente, Jimmie Foxx, Nap Lajoie, Ken Griffey Jr., Cal Ripken Jr., Ron Santo, Joe Morgan, Ernie Banks, Jackie Robinson, and Carl Yastrzemski

Pitchers(in no order, Pitching WAR only)

Roger Clemens, Lefty Grove, Walter Johnson, Pete Alexander, Christy Mathewson, Randy Johnson, Tom Seaver, Pedro Martinez, Greg Maddux, Bob Gibson, Cy Young, Robin Roberts, Ed Walsh, Sandy Koufax, Bob Feller, Rube Waddell, Vic Willis, and Joe McGinnity.

Obviously this is not a complete list  of players who I think deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. It would be ridiculous to have a HOF without Mel Ott or Steve Carlton, among many others. I just thought this would be a fun exercise. I hope this does however help answer any questions about what I like to consider when determining who belongs or not. There are many factors that need to be measured when deciding whom to vote for, but I feel that peak is the most important one.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

21 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Hartvig
Hartvig
11 years ago

You’ve managed to identify some of the greatest players of all time using this method but if you end up with Vic Willis and Rube Waddell on the inside but not Warren Spahn, Frank Robinson or Johnny Bench I’m not certain how useful it really is.

I agree that a few really outstanding seasons are more valuable in most circumstances than several very good ones but I don’t think you’ve found the proper balance yet.

baltimorechop
baltimorechop
11 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

I recall Bill James having a chapter in his “whatever happened to the hall of fame?” and it was whether a short-duration high-peak pitcher is better than a long, compiler good pitcher in terms of winning a pennant. I think it was Koufax vs. Sutton, but i honestly don’t remember the results of his math. does anyone else? As for WA6, it’s hard for me to subscribe to any one single measure of only counting war in a season above a certain point. If it’s WA5 or WA7, it’s completely different; yes, you can almost always find the true baseball… Read more »

Joe
Joe
11 years ago
Reply to  baltimorechop

It was Drysdale vs. Pappas due to their similar overall W-L records. Drysdale beats Pappas in every simulation, but the more realistic James tried to make the scenario, the smaller the advantage was for Drysdale.

Hartvig
Hartvig
11 years ago
Reply to  Joe

He doesn’t go into any of the math but he also talked about it somewhere in the New BJHBA when he was comparing Carlton Fisk and Roy Campanella. I’m pretty sure it’s under the Fisk entry in the player rankings.

Doug
Editor
11 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

For pitchers, a method like this should (I think) be adjusted to normalize based on workload standards. Perhaps going with WAR above 6 per IP, for example. Otherwise, there will be a disproportionate number of pitchers from the early days who routinely had 300+ IP (or even 400+ IP) every year.

Ed
Ed
11 years ago

My guess is that this method tends to benefit well-rounded players over one-dimensional players. For example, due to his poor defense and baserunning, Miguel Cabrera only has 4.4 points by this method.

And catchers have almost no chance whatsoever.

Artie Z.
Artie Z.
11 years ago

Depending on how you are counting seasons, you miss Kid Nichols. He had 7.6 WAR in 1904, and from 1890-1899 his WAR ranged from 7.4 to 13.1, though you may not be counting any seasons before 1901 (I’m not sure if it is one year over 6 after 1901 and look at the player’s entire career or just the post-1901 years). I think the shortcoming of the method is highlighted by Frank Robinson and Yaz. I would guess most impartial observers would take Robinson over Yaz (and probably even some Red Sox fans), and that’s not meant to be a… Read more »

Dan McCloskey
Editor
11 years ago
Reply to  Artie Z.

I’ve tried similar methods to Artie Z’s idea at #6 and Neal’s original idea, but never really settled on anything. The bottom line is no matter what objective criteria I came up with, I still needed to bring some subjectivity into it, especially when it comes to players whose careers are shortened by segregation, military service, etc. Also to account for the fact that catchers are subject to a playing time disadvantage and there are some great players in the early days of the game who had short careers, partly due to the length of seasons, but also because it… Read more »

baltimorechop
baltimorechop
11 years ago
Reply to  Artie Z.

This is a great read right here. I bought some book on my ipad about War and the guy listed Seasons above 3 5 and 7 WAR for each player. I liked the basic idea of looking at multiple measures, though I can’t for sure say those are the best cut offs (honestly, who can say for sure what the best cut off is?) I don’t have a specific minimum scenario for my hall; i usually use a method like this to compare two players (and if one is in my hall, and they’re close, then i take the other… Read more »

Lawrence Azrin
Lawrence Azrin
11 years ago
Reply to  Artie Z.

Yaz vs. Robbie – OK, here’s something about WAR that’s bothered me a while, and the perfect place to express it: Frank Robinson 1966 versus Yaz 1967 always seemed like pretty comparable seasons to me; the last two Triple-Crown winners (before Cabrera,two alltime great seasons by any standard. But look at their B-R WAR those years: – 1966 Robbie: 7.6 (tied for 361st all-time) – 1967 Yaz: 12.4 (tied for THIRD all-time!!! Ruth/’27) Yaz’s 1967 Impossible Dream season looks like one of the very very greatest ever (which many many observers said at the time), but Robbie in 1966 looks… Read more »

baltimorechop
baltimorechop
11 years ago
Reply to  Lawrence Azrin

I realize almost the entire difference is from fielding, but as for the GIDPs:

Frank GIDP 24 times in 151 opportunities in 66
Yaz GIDP 5 times in 150 opportunities in 67

Hartvig
Hartvig
11 years ago
Reply to  Lawrence Azrin

Could part of Yaz’s fielding advantage have anything to do with Reggie Smith having to shade right field to cover the inadequacies of Tony Conigliaro, Jose Tartabull and Hawk Harrelson?

And I know WAR doesn’t really measure this but for the last 2 weeks of the 1967 season Carl Yastrzemski was the greatest baseball player the world has ever seen, at least in the mind of this 12 year old.

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
11 years ago
Reply to  Hartvig

Hartvig, It’s hard to convey how remarkable Yaz was in that ’67 finish. If WAR incorporated WPA, Yaz’s late-season heroics would put Robinson much further in the shade. They boosted his season WPA to 8.4, still, with almost 70 seasons of data, the 14th highest season total ever. (Robinson’s in ’66 was 5.2.) But the key is that about 2.5 of Yaz’s WPA season total came in just the final dozen games, when the pressure of a four-team pennant race was insane – especially on Boston, following consecutive 9th place finishes. (At the start of those games, Boston was tied… Read more »

Lawrence Azrin
Lawrence Azrin
11 years ago
Reply to  Lawrence Azrin

@12,

Very perceptive, baltimorechop. I guess that would equal about 10 runs, which is roughly what WAR states (assuming other baserunning is about equal between them).

Lawrence Azrin
Lawrence Azrin
11 years ago
Reply to  Lawrence Azrin

@14/Hartvig, I think part of Yaz’s fielding advantage was that he was awesome in playing The Wall at Fenway. Harrelson and the catch basin of other Red Sox RFers were not very good, but I thought that Conigliaro oand Tartabull were decent. Yaz played better the closer he got to the end of 1967. In the last two games against the Twins to decide the pennant, he was 7 of 8, with a HR and 6 RBI. He also threw out a batter who hit a ball off The Wall trying to stretch (what was usually) a double into a… Read more »

Hartvig
Hartvig
11 years ago
Reply to  Lawrence Azrin

At least according to their range factors (as well as dWAR) neither Conigliaro or Tartabull were covering a whole lot of ground in 1967. If I recall correctly from when I looked this morning Smith’s RF was a tiny bit above league average and Yaz’s was a fair bit above although not as much as a few others I’ve seen (although if memory serves they were all connected with Gold Glove seasons).

And now that I think about it I would have still been 11 years old at the end of the 1967 baseball season since my birthdays in December.

Doug
Editor
11 years ago

This method is simple and appropriate. It is akin to WAA (Wins Above Average) that Adam uses for his Hall of Stats. You might call this WAAS (Wins Above All-Star). What Adam does with WAA is look at the total across a career, including both positive and negative differences, but he also compiles a total for just the positive differences. Both of those results feed into his final score. If you like, the first is analogous to career value and the second (only positive differences) is analogous to peak value. How much weight to put on career vs. peak is… Read more »

birtelcom
Editor
11 years ago

Any system with cliffs like WAR6 (where a 5.9 WAR season counts the same as a 0 WAR season) is going to create some odd effects. I would always prefer to go with a system that is based on curves rather than cliffs. One way to emphasize peak, without creating cliffs, might be to multiply a guy’s best season by a certain number, his next best season by a lower number, his third best season by a yet lower number, and so on all the way on down to his worst season. That way, players get extra credit for their… Read more »

Lawrence Azrin
Lawrence Azrin
11 years ago
Reply to  birtelcom

Bill James did something similar when he was trying to determine the best sets of brothers in MLB history. He added up their Win shares, but multiplied the 2nd-best brother by two, the 3rd-best by 3, etc… giving more weight to the less good brothers.

I also prefer this method to sharply-defined cutoffs. I also disagree that average seasons do not have any value. In the real world, pennants are lost every year due to teams having several below-average players as regulars. If an “average” player can help a team get into the post-season, he has value in MLB.

mosc
mosc
11 years ago

IF IF war worked, which I don’t think it does due to dwar, I would propose a system that weighted each additional WAR in a slugging-like formula. WAAM (wins above average, mosc’s way): League positional average WAR is first deducted from the player’s seasons. Then, one WAR is removed for counting at 1x. Then, another WAR is removed counting at 2x. Then another at 3x. For example, Trout in 2012 had 10.9 WAR and we call 2.1 WAR average. That’s 8.8 WAA, or 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 8×0.8… Read more »