2013 Hall of Fame Ballot

[agrudez]

I put Moronobu like eighth, but that's because there are some truly all-time greats in this bunch. He's one of them, but there were seven guys I wanted to see ahead of him, at least this year. He might move up on my ballot next year depending on who gets in and who's up for consideration.

Definitely concur. I struggled with Moronobu's placement between 5th and 8th (eventually settled on 8th this year), but in a normal year (without 3 shoe-ins: Labrie, Hunter and White) he is a top 3 guy, imo. I voted Iraq, Lasalle, Washington and Johnston ahead of him this year, but it very easily could've been Lasalle at 4 and Moronobu at 5 as well.

Yeah I think WAR would definitely help clarify the differences between some of the players.

I WOULD agree, except that many players on the ballot will have mis-represented WARs. Luna, for instance, doesn't have a WAR figure for the first 7 years of his career. Adding it now (before those older players are fully 'phased out') would be a detriment to the process, imo.

As for any other stats... ZR is tricky because if the player played multiple positions which one do you add? If the guy had 10 seasons at SS and 2 seasons at 2B its obvious... but what if he had 6 at each? And what if he was a significantly better 2B (> 5 ZR every year, one or more GGs) than SS (roughly 0 ZR each year), but was 'pressed into action' at the latter due to the manager. Also, does a LF with +100 ZR in 15 seasons get favored to a CF with +40 over the same period just because the number is higher? What about a LFer that was forced to play CF and ended up with a 0 ZR despite having the ratings to have a +100 ZR at LF? Does he get dinged for that?

[wualumni]

Then we should hold off on WAR until all the candidates have that available.


Jason Martin
GM - California Crusaders (MBWBA)
GM - Texas Rangers (BBA)

[7teen]

My fear with adding WAR and VORP is that it becomes the sole basis for everyone's votes. My guess is around 50% of peoples ballots will become just ranking the top 15 VORP/WARs in order and submitting their ballot.

I say this because I'm afraid that's how about half the league vote on All-Stars and Awards. Instead of looking at the entire body of work, they'll just vote on this alone.

[trmmilwwi]

My fear with adding WAR and VORP is that it becomes the sole basis for everyone's votes. My guess is around 50% of peoples ballots will become just ranking the top 15 VORP/WARs in order and submitting their ballot.

I say this because I'm afraid that's how about half the league vote on All-Stars and Awards. Instead of looking at the entire body of work, they'll just vote on this alone.

for truth

[aaronweiner]

And Hall of Fames are about cumulative stats. It's why we MIGHT consider Ramon Ayala, since 221 wins is a whole lot in the MBWBA.

[mrbornac]

My fear with adding WAR and VORP is that it becomes the sole basis for everyone's votes. My guess is around 50% of peoples ballots will become just ranking the top 15 VORP/WARs in order and submitting their ballot.

I say this because I'm afraid that's how about half the league vote on All-Stars and Awards. Instead of looking at the entire body of work, they'll just vote on this alone.

for truth

[wualumni]

WAR takes in so many factors that I consider it very valuable. Right now we have no representation for a position players fielding skills so someone like a real life Ozzie Smith wouldn't have a chance to make it & probably wouldn't even appear on the ballot. At least WAR takes into account a players fielding abilities especially now that we use the DH. In my opinion it should be very hard for a DH to make it into the HOF when they never play in the field.


Jason Martin
GM - California Crusaders (MBWBA)
GM - Texas Rangers (BBA)

[agrudez]

Is ranking 1-15 in WAR not the perfect representation of how valuable each player was, though? It satiates the 'cumulative stat' people because guys with longer careers will have more WAR AND it satiates the 'dominant seasons' people because guys with better prime seasons will have more WAR. It also perfectly factors the defensive contributions of a position player (ie. it solves the player X should've been playing position Y argument I created against including ZR since the more difficult positions have a higher weight factor to them) AND accounts for a pitcher's actual individual performance (divorced from luck and/or defensive factors). I use WAR as my primary basis (other factors are used, but it creates my "skeleton" from which I build from) for my AS ballot and am proud of it - as I should, because it is statistically correct to do so.

And Hall of Fames are about cumulative stats.

I disagree with the premise of this statement (I value dominance for a stretch over additional years of mediocrity tacked onto the end of a dwindling career), but is WAR not a cumulative stat anyway? In fact, is WAR not the all-encompassing, end-all, be-all cumulative stat?

Having said all of that, I understand why one would fear "lazy" ballots if WAR were included; however, it would be impossible to argue that even a "lazy" ballot which ranked players 1-15 based on WAR (with some deviations in the list to account for SP accumulating more WAR than position players accumulating more WAR than relievers) wouldn't be infinitely better than some of those that get put out there with players that are consensus top 3's, but get put near the bottom of a random ballot to keep their score down (or something) for whatever reason (Jason highlights multiple instances of this occurence every year).

[mrbornac]

There is no perfect stat for baseball, WAR included. Infact, no stat is overvalued in my opinion more than WAR. Not that others are not also overvalued, but the faith put into this one number by so many people is worse than saves or stolen bases or even ERA.

[aaronweiner]

I like saves and ERA. Saves say, "the game was won while I was on the mound." ERA within a range is a product of your own pitching quality. Stolen bases are way overrated, but they're awfully fun to watch.

[7teen]

Is ranking 1-15 in WAR not the perfect representation of how valuable each player was, though? It satiates the 'cumulative stat' people because guys with longer careers will have more WAR AND it satiates the 'dominant seasons' people because guys with better prime seasons will have more WAR. It also perfectly factors the defensive contributions of a position player (ie. it solves the player X should've been playing position Y argument I created against including ZR since the more difficult positions have a higher weight factor to them) AND accounts for a pitcher's actual individual performance (divorced from luck and/or defensive factors). I use WAR as my primary basis (other factors are used, but it creates my "skeleton" from which I build from) for my AS ballot and am proud of it - as I should, because it is statistically correct to do so.

And Hall of Fames are about cumulative stats.

I disagree with the premise of this statement (I value dominance for a stretch over additional years of mediocrity tacked onto the end of a dwindling career), but is WAR not a cumulative stat anyway? In fact, is WAR not the all-encompassing, end-all, be-all cumulative stat?

Having said all of that, I understand why one would fear "lazy" ballots if WAR were included; however, it would be impossible to argue that even a "lazy" ballot which ranked players 1-15 based on WAR (with some deviations in the list to account for SP accumulating more WAR than position players accumulating more WAR than relievers) wouldn't be infinitely better than some of those that get put out there with players that are consensus top 3's, but get put near the bottom of a random ballot to keep their score down (or something) for whatever reason (Jason highlights multiple instances of this occurence every year).

If this is the case, then just let Jason induct the person with the higest WAR each year and none of us need to vote.

[agrudez]

There is no perfect stat for baseball, WAR included. Infact, no stat is overvalued in my opinion more than WAR. Not that others are not also overvalued, but the faith put into this one number by so many people is worse than saves or stolen bases or even ERA.

There are 2 pitfalls to WAR. The first is ignoring year to year fluctuation - ie. Player X had 4 WAR last year so he is a 4 WAR player. You have to dig deeper as maybe it was a pitcher that had a lower HR/9 than his career average or maybe it was a batter than had an abnormal BABIP. The second is trying to accumulate player WAR into a team metric - it just wasn't made for that.

When used correctly, WAR is actually UNDERvalued because it pretty much captures everything that every other stat does in one number. Even if you disagree with its formulation, it is uniform across all players so it doesn't matter - it is still a powerful comparative tool across the board. If there was only one metric you were allowed to look at for batters and one for pitchers you would want them both to be WAR. The smart thing to do is to look at multiple things, though, of course - I was just sayin'. As for this discussion, the large sample size of a player's career is more than enough to account for any misgivings you may have in the metric as well, imo.

I like saves and ERA. Saves say, "the game was won while I was on the mound." ERA within a range is a product of your own pitching quality. Stolen bases are way overrated, but they're awfully fun to watch.

That is a very simplistic way to view ERA, imo. It is actually the product of a team's overall performance in limiting opposition runs while pitcher Z was on the mound accompanied by X mitigating factors (many of which are very hard to quantify since they mostly have to do with the ever ephermal "luck"... how many HRs did the pitcher give up with runners on vs. not? A guy giving up 10 HRs with 2 runners on is the same as a guy who gives up 15 HRs with 1 runner on. How many walks did they allow to push runners into scoring position vs. the first base-runner? Even a guy with poor control can benefit from 'luck' if he is habitually walking guys with 2 down and nobody on. How many times were they bailed out of RISP jams by a timely DP? Despite conventional wisdom, even the best pitchers can't just "dial that up". How much did the defense affect [either way] their performance? Even a strong defense can have different affeccts on different pitchers). Advanced stats get a bad rap for being confusing, but its the traditional ones that make my head spin because you have to adjust them a dozen times to get the true story. If you just skip to FIP you're pretty much done. I mean, you might need to double check a pitcher's peripherals relative to their career, but that is a step (one of many - the list I put above was just the tip of the iceberg as I see it) that you'd have to have done to make ERA useful anyway.

If this is the case, then just let Jason induct the person with the higest WAR each year and none of us need to vote.

Then we'd miss out on so many great debates, though! Everyone is going to vote their own way and I respect that... I don't even glance at ERA, wins, saves, AVG - any of that stuff - when I look at a ballot. It is straight to OPS+ vs. position played, ERA+ vs. IP and all-star/individual awards for me (I know the voting process is flawed, but it shows that they were the best at what they do for a season - which is important to me). You, and many others, obviously look at everything I ignore and probably ignore a bit of what I hold dear. I could make a case that having ERA and OPS on a ballot is useless since we already have the '+'s' that relate them to league strength during their era (which is infinitely more useful, of course), but I wouldn't fault anyone for disagreeing with me (after I wrote a dissertation on the subject, of course, haha). It's fun, imo, that we all have different perogatives, isn't it? I was merely arguing that the premise against including WAR was rather absurd - since those "lazy" ballots that you're afraid of would actuablly be perfectly sound. Its just another tool that I'd, personally, like to see on the ballot since it is something I value.

[wualumni]

As Kyle said WAR is a good starting point, but it isn't everything. When looking at All-Stars & Awards I definitely look at WAR, but consider everything in total. The argument could me made already that people are just going by OPS+ for batters in the HOF and ordering them.

For me it's just more information to make a better decision on who should be inducted.


Jason Martin
GM - California Crusaders (MBWBA)
GM - Texas Rangers (BBA)

[7teen]

This is a test.... Which of these players is a hall of famer in your opinion...

Player A: Career .335/.398/.549; 2,702 hits; 377 homeruns; 1,568 RBI;
Player B: Career 145 OPS+; 86.5 WAR
Player C: 11 All-Star appearances; 3 Silk Awards

This is all just a test. I'm not for excluding WAR and the other stats. I just expressed my fear of how some ballots will go.

[jcrmoon42]

[trmmilwwi]

I'll bite... player C.

[aaronweiner]

I'd happily say all three of them.

[7teen]

I'll bite... player C.

Comparing those 3, I would agree.

Player A's counting stats are good, no major milestones.
Player B I have no ground for comparison
Player C looks impressive based on individual achievement.

[aaronweiner]

You posting reminds me of something: if Charles Puckett and Bopper Kengos both retire in the same year there's almost no chance that they don't finish 1-2 on most people's ballots. That would be cool.

[agrudez]

This is a test.... Which of these players is a hall of famer in your opinion...

Player A: Career .335/.398/.549; 2,702 hits; 377 homeruns; 1,568 RBI;
Player B: Career 145 OPS+; 86.5 WAR
Player C: 11 All-Star appearances; 3 Silk Awards

This is all just a test. I'm not for excluding WAR and the other stats. I just expressed my fear of how some ballots will go.

B and C for sure... A depends on what position they played (for sure if anything but a 1B or DH). So who are they?