ARE YOU KIDDING ME? ARE YOU FRICKING KIDDING?
DMZ · January 6, 2010 at 11:49 am · Filed Under Mariners
I’ve been to Cooperstown. It’s just a plaque. And I’ve managed to talk myself into not caring so much about what writers vote for when it comes to the MVP and whatnot.
But then Rickey doesn’t get in unanimously and steam comes out my ears. Or this… I would start my litany of complaint, but it’ll be a string of curse words and we’ll get USSM blocked on people’s work filters.
Comments
149 Responses to “ARE YOU KIDDING ME? ARE YOU FRICKING KIDDING?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Well, of course it does. If you argue that it shouldn’t because the player doesn’t have to field, then that can be countered by saying no American League pitcher should ever be considered because he’s never called on to hit.
Or, you could apply that to every single player in the NFL after Chuck Bednarik, because nobody plays both ways anymore.
When this subject came up here a week or two ago someone said that Edgar’s candidacy would not be a referendum on the DH. I claimed that absolutely it is. If Edgar had played ANY position, would there be a doubt that his stats merited election? I don’t think so.
This is just a case of stupid deja vu. The thinking that says DH’s shouldn’t be in the Hall is exactly the same thinking that once said people with black skin shouldn’t be in the Major Leagues. Ignorant bias, plain and simple.
Not worth arguing about, but I wasn’t arguing for or against Dawson’s candidacy or comparing him to Edgar. Somebody asked “Other than Ozzie Smith or Brooks Robinson, who else in the Hall is ever discussed as being there for their amazing glove?” I am not saying that he was elected primarily because of his glove, like Ozzie and Brooks, just that he might not have been elected if it weren’t for his defensive contributions in addition to his offense. As in, maybe 20 voters wouldn’t have thought his offensive record was Hall-worthy, but his all-around talents convinced them.
If you reply to this for some reason, try not to mention WAR.
Edgar being a career DH was a significant advantage to the Mariners. So long as the DH option is selected advertently by 100% of managers to whom that option is available, there will always be a choice to be made. Edgar made that choice obvious for the Mariners from 1994-2004. He was comfortable in the role, could hit against both right- and left-handed pitching, wasn’t taking at-bats away from a better hitter and wasn’t requiring that a better fielder sit on the bench. The M’s were able to employ good fielding first basemen (Olerud, Sorrento).
Anthony, re your comparison to Griffey, I’m sorry to say you are making a terrible argument. You don’t have to be better or as good as Ken Griffey, Jr. to make the Hall of Fame. You don’t have to be the best player on your own team (ask Lou Gehrig or, better, Tony Perez). Want to know one reason why Edgar had fewer RBI than Griffey? Because Griffey hit ahead of him in the lineup and hit a lot of home runs.
So, is there any stats basis for saying DH’ing inflates or deflates numbers? If Edgar’s numbers improved after becoming a full-time DH, was that because it is easier to hit in that position, or was it because he was a truly exceptional DH?
I think the latter, and truly exceptional players at their position belong in the HOF.
By what rationale is Ken Griffey Jr. not considered one of the greatest players ever?
I thought WAR took into account defense and that our defensive metrics were atrocious until the previous decade. How are we citing WAR for players like Dawson as accurate measures of their true value?
FWIW…the biggest problem I had with Baker’s article was that he seemed to excuse away Edgar’s stats because he wasn’t hitting 50-60 HRs during the steroids era.
Amazing to hold someone accountable for NOT cheating…
Everyone should write/email the Seattle Times and complain about Baker. It’s fine if he didn’t vote for Edgar, but then to come up with some BS reason is just ridiculous. I have never liked his articles and think he should try another job…perhaps working for TMZ? He is a JOKE of a journalist.
@ georgmi: “clearly, the majority of HOF voters do not consider WAR in their deliberations, so using WAR as an explanation of, or argument against, their votes is not particularly useful.”
I did not and am not suggesting that HoF voters do use WAR in their deliberations. In fact, I posted earlier in this thread lamenting the fact that they do not, and how different the ballot might look if they did.
I am suggesting that WAR, which uses zone rating and UZR and other advanced metrics to measure defensive contribution (though the historical ZR stuff that I think is used for the historical database I quoted is not as good as what we use today, to address stevie_j13’s question – citing to WAR is citing to the best defensive metric we have for players of Dawson’s era), is the best way to measure whether illdonk was suggesting is true, objectively. Certainly better than citing to the defensive metrics of of Dawson’s day. Could that have been the subjective opinion of HoF voters? Neither I, illdonk, nor anybody else can know that – I’ll just stand by what I said before: I don’t think there has ever been any player who got “over the hump” for election to the HoF based on defense at a position other than 2B, SS, 3B, or C. If there was, it might be a CF, but Dawson played more RF than CF.
@ illdonk: “If you reply to this for some reason, try not to mention WAR.”
Are you a HoF voter, by chance? 😉
Seriously, this is what we’re up against. You claim that Dawson’s defense was good enough that it could have been the reason he was elected to the HoF, I cite to the best metric to measure whether that statement is true, and you reply by asking me not to cite to that statistic.
I only brought up Edgar Martinez because he is a good measuring stick for your theory, since any WAR he accumulated after 1994 not only did not come from defense, but had to overcome the positional adjustment/penalty assigned to the position of DH. That might have been a confusing argument.
Look at it another way: we could all agree that Franklin Gutierrez had a great, HOF caliber defensive season in CF last year. If we looked at Dawson’s best early season year in CF, and compared Guti’s offensive stats and Dawson’s, and then compared the WAR they accumulated in those seasons, I think it would be obvious that Dawson was not the kind of defensive center fielder who gets a significant boost in value from defense.
Didn’t really address my question. The WAR used to track players during Guti’s era is much more accurate than the WAR used during Dawson’s era because a) WAR takes into account defense, and b) the defensive metrics were at best mediocre then and have improved greatly today. In other words, Dawson’s UZR is not nearly as accurate as Guti’s UZR, yet they are being treated as equals when you cite WAR comparing players from different decades.
The non-starting pitchers frequently called upon by a manager in certain game situations (Long Reliever Guy, Mop-up Guy, Need a Strike Out with Runners in Scoring Position Guy, Lefty One-Out Guy, Set-Up Guy and Final Three Outs Guy) are important and provide value but those roles are nothing more than the product of an en vogue deployment strategy which has evolved over time. “Substitution†would be the official MLB Rule Book term.
The every-day Designated Hitter is not a situational player and definitely not a substitute. So why does the DH continue to get lumped together with pitchers who are products of a managerial strategy instead of the other guys who join him in the starting lineup day after day, all summer long?
More than anything, I’d appreciate if Geoff would come on here and defend his position. It’s very clear that he reads this blog often, as he often borrows from the fine content here. By voting the way he did, crafting his pathetic excuse for an argument, and then failing to defend it in any way, he is making very clear that he intended to stir up controversy, nothing more. He called the ticket giveaway-poster a “wannabe,” but fact is Baker is just a wannabe journalist. The athletes you cover are the stars of the show, Geoff, not you.
Ummm…because it’s meaningless with regards to what I was saying?
Because a lot of people sure as heck think that Dawson was a good defensive outfielder, as evidenced by his his eight Gold Gloves (BOO! HISS! HE SAID GOLD GLOVES! GET THE TORCHES!), and even if WAR sonehow disproves that, they still think so and voted based on that perception? Since Dawson made the cut by 15 votes, it’s not crazy to think that his defense or defensive reputation (take your pick) might have been a factor.
Forget I ever brought this up.
GAR will definately get in the Hall, it’s only a matter of time. Not having him in the HOF with the DH award named after him would be like not having Hank Aaron or Cy Young in the HOF.
Geoff B –
(I know you read this blog) If Dawson’s playing through knee ailments was a major factor for AD in your mind, then why wasn’t Edgar’s strabismus even mentioned as a factor in his favor. Wouldn’t overcoming an inability to focus on a 95 mph pitch seem a larger obstacle than joint pain — especially to a hitter? Not even mentioning it looks like bias.
Or maybe the knee thing is just a poorly thought-through rationalization?
Also (from Wiki) – “MartÃnez, Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, Stan Musial, Rogers Hornsby, Lou Gehrig, Manny Ramirez, and Todd Helton are the only players in history with 300 home runs, 500 doubles, a career batting average higher than .300, a career on-base percentage higher than .400 and a career slugging percentage higher than .500.”
That grouping says a lot. And it’s not one stat. It’s the combination of stats that says “dominant hitter”.
Your reasoning seems weak, and on the wrong side of history. I know you’re not the only guy, but you should have formulated a better rationale if you’re a Seattle sportswriter, don’t you think?
According to The Book by Tom Tango, the statistics available since 1973 show that hitters perform worse when playing DH than when playing a fielding position. While I can see the argument that Edgar had more PAs due to the DH position, an argument that he performed better in those PAs because he was a DH seems contrary to all of the evidence.
illdonk, you and I are talking right past each other (and your tone is now making me not want to have that beer in Cooperstown that you talked about in the other thread – I don’t think I’ve adopted that kind of tone with you). I *never* said that Dawson was not well-regarded for his defense, at least early in his career (although you are right, I am not impressed by citations to Gold Gloves won as an OBJECTIVE measure of defensive performance). I said that I don’t think (and cited to a an “overall value” stat that *DOES* include as a component an objective measure of defensive performance. Perhaps I should have cited simply to the underlying defensive stat that is used in historical WAR, but it is not as readily available as WAR is, since WAR incorporates it, I used that.
We can agree to disagree if you want. In fact, at this point, that’s what *I* want. But I think you need to understand that WAR incorporates an objective measure of defensive performance. It is not “meaningless” or irrelevant, except (as you say) to the subjective opinions of HoF voters who clearly understand the stat even less well than you do.
@stevie_j13: The WAR used to track players during Guti’s era is much more accurate than the WAR used during Dawson’s era…[so] Dawson’s UZR is not nearly as accurate as Guti’s UZR, yet they are being treated as equals.”
To my knowledge, the Histotical WAR database does not compare players from a previous era by using apples and oranges (i.e., modern defensive metrics for modern players and older, less advanced metrics for older players). Historical WAR uses Total Zone, simply because it provides a readily available metric that does a reasonable job to measure players across eras that don’t have the same kind of data/stats available. From the glossary explaining the Historical WAR components:
I can’t find the link (I think I saw it on Tango’s site), but the Historical WAR, even on the defensive side, correlates pretty well with WAR using more modern metrics (like Fangraphs) for modern players where both are available. There are differences, but not huge ones.
I was not trying to make a direct comparison of Guti and Dawson, at least not in anything but the roughest way. I’m just saying, when you look at the WAR (either method) of a truly great CF in a fantastic season, like Guti’s 2009, I think you’d find that Dawson’s offense accounted for quite a bit more of his total value in any year of his career. It’s not quite an apples to apples comparison, but it is close enough. Even in his best defensive years, I would guess that his defense did not contribute as big a portion to overall value as we would expect from a guy elected “primarily” for his defense (which is what illdonk said, or at least implied, since he replied to a question asking for examples of that).
Aaargh. This sentence should have read:
I’m just saying, when you look at the WAR (either method) of a truly great CF in a fantastic season, like Guti’s 2009, I think you’d find that Dawson’s offense accounted for quite a bit more of his total value in any year of his career and Gut’s defense accounted for quite a bit more of his overall value.
Let’s give Mickey Mantle a bump because he played his whole career on one leg. Willie Mays only accomplished more and appeared to be the better player because he had two good legs. Players who had two good legs should be have their actual performance appropriately discounted, just as those who had the advantage of not playing defense.
Clearly, players’ performances should all be discounted for each disadvantage that they did not experience. Developing a defensible set of discount factors for unincurred disadvantages is the next sabermetric frontier! Only then can players’ actual performances be reranked after removing the effects of their various advantages over other players for unexperienced impediments.
That is the biggest load of crap I’ve ever read. Baker just lost ever little bit of credibility he had. Not that he had much to begin with but what the hell?seriously he doesn’t vote for Edgar but he votes for a guy like Blylevin? Geoff said that Edgar being a DH hurt him. Okay I must be missing something because how in the world is a pitcher who effects the game every 5 days more valuable then Edgar who played every day while hitting over .300, has 300 home runs, 1000 rbi’s, 2000 hits and is the makes Andre Dawson look like the grinch. Please can someone enlighten me.
And they shouldn’t either. The majority of baseball broadcasters are hired by the team. Their loyalties may be a tad suspect.
Unlike the COMPLETELY SOUND AND UNBIASED loyalties of the current voters, of course.
So WAR is meaningless when discussing the subjective opinions of HoF voters…which is what I was discussing. Glad that’s cleared up.
I’m not sure quoting myself is good manners, but I had an additional thought.
I wonder which player in history comes closest to meriting having their actual performance taken at face value with this approach? That’d be the player with the longest list of impediments actually experienced (small, near sighted, inept,clumbsy, catcher, right handed, etc.).
Since BAKER appears to be piloting this approach, I wonder who he’d select as the poster child for least discountable accomplishment?
Yes, it is. As is my opinion of you.
You realize, of course, that this means WAR.
Geoff Baker is dead to me.
Part of me wonders whether the Seattle Times needed Geoff Baker to vote against Edgar so that they could run pro and con articles. Maybe, I am just in denial.
From the top of the thread…
Blyleven started below 20%, and now he’s at 74%…Bruce Sutter started at 23.9%, Jim Rice at 29.8%, Gossage started at 33.3%
Much as I concur these guys belong “in”, this is more absurd than any other aspect of the Hall of Fame voting. I can see starting at 50-60% and edging up over a couple of years as voters add players who aren’t first ballot Hall of Famers (like it or not that’s a widespread voting approach) or have room for a player they thought was the 11th or 12th best candidate. But in what way shape or form does it make sense for 1/2 of the voters to change their mind on a player AFTER he retires.
Andre Dawson was the best player on the ballot this year? Seriously?
In my mind, and I think others, there are three or four players on the ballot who clearly belong in the Hall of Fame (Blyleven, Raines, Alomar) plus three or four others who deserve serious consideration. Dawson isn’t in either group.
I’ve always liked Dawson, especially as a Cub and admire him for playing hurt, but he’s at the top of the class of great players who weren’t Hall of Fame great, like Rice and McGriff.
to tack onto Pete’s note about Gar’s injury history:
1988 sore left knee problem toward the end of the season; played through it and had arthroscopic surgery after the season.
1990 missed the last 5 games because of a right knee problem that required post-season arthroscopic surgery.
1992 had surgery to remove a bone spur in his throwing shoulder mid-September. Still managed to be A.L. player of month for July and August.
1993 severely pulled/tore hamstring when signaled to steal 2nd in the poor footing of an exhibition field in Vancouver BC; on disabled list April 4-May 17, June 15-July 21 and Aug. 17-end of season.
1994 on disabled list to start the season with bruised right wrist (hit on the wrist by Dennis Martinez on the first pitch he saw that season); split time at DH and 3B.
1995 began to DH pretty much full-time.
1996 his consecutive game streak of 293 games was snapped; playing 3B, going for a pop-up, and Marzano failed to pull up — four cracked ribs, only missed 21 games.
1997 in a week’s span, 5 stitches in the back of the head (errant bat flies into dugout) and 8 stitches in the chin (connecting with a hockey-style mask at home plate)
1998 post-season surgery on right knee to clean up cartilage.
1999 Pulled a rib muscle, batting.
2001 missed a couple of games when he fouled a ball off his foot, and another couple to a suspension for charging the mound; on the DL July
16-Aug. 3, 2001 with strained left quad.
2002 (April 12-June 14) on disabled list, after surgery to remove a ruptured hamstring tendon behind left knee.
2003 Broken toe
I have this vision of Edgar and Junior getting voted into the hall together in 6 years.
I’m still amazed that Eric Karros got -two- votes.
And I wonder if Geoff Baker was one of them.
Now that amazes me. If you’re going to not vote for anyone, you had better have a damn good explanation.
It’s about time to start a Hall of Fame for the uninducted – judging by who’s been left out thus far that company is about to become more elite.
There’s no way all these guys are going to get in next year.
Alomar, Larkin, Edgar, McGriff, McGwire – these guys were legit superstars in the 90s.
Raines and Trammel were legit 80s superstars.
Blyleven was good for a long time….
Didn’t Edgar consistently win the gold glove for DH?
Just got home from a night of bartending and heard Bob Costas, Peter Gammons, Harold Reynolds & host debate for 5-plus minutes the merits of Edgar Martinez as a H.O.F. player on MLB network.
Costas’ argument, which is a fairly good one, is that Edgar, in his prime, was never considered among the top ten ‘players’ in baseball. They guys who got less votes than him were. It’s actually a pretty good argument.
Gammon’s argument was that Edgar is a DH, and the NL doesn’t have a DH, and it’s not the AL Hall of Fame, so… Yeah, we’ve covered that.
Harold Reynolds’ defense was that Edgar was a great DH… which addressed nothing that Costas or Gammons brought up.
One thing was mentioned however that I thought was interesting: Costas and Gammons were both amazed at how Edgar had so much support.
I attribute that to USSM.
How can the USSM community reach these two?
I have a strong feeling that certain members of the BBWAA are much more influential (costas, gammons) than others (e.g. jeff baker).
The only reason that Edgar wasn’t considered to be in the top ten players was because he played in such a small market called Seattle.
Both Costas’ and Gammons’ arguments have been refuted time and time again. Costas is trying to use a validation by populist opinion (a fallacy). Because other people didn’t think highly of Edgar, that means nobody should. What do YOU think of Edgar, Costas. He’s also wrong. I’ve heard a lot of people who highly regarded Edgar during his time. He’s probably using “MVP voting” as his measuring stick, which is like saying “because the BBWAA didn’t think he was great before, they shouldn’t like him now”.
Gammons’ argument surprises me a bit. Sure, he’s old, but he’s never struck me as a huge baseball purist stuck in the pre-1970s. His argument is stupid because while it’s not the AL Hall of Fame, it’s not the NL Hall of Fame either. So why in the hell are you only judging qualifications based on the primary difference between the two leagues?
Make sense? No. But the reason almost certainly is that many of the voters know nothing about stats (except perhaps the triple crown numbers) and do almost no research prior to voting. So as the years go along, someone hands them information, or explains it to them verbally one on one, that explains why a particular player should qualify.
Sad, but many of them do no research on their own.
And those that do, often do it in a very… let’s say, confused and illogical way without understanding value in baseball (yes, Baker, I’m looking at you).
I don’t happen to agree with Geoff Baker on Edgar. My main concern is that there isn’t much in his argument that would allow him to eventually vote for Edgar. Worse, in trying to defend himself, I fear he will become even more locked into his position.
On ESPN radio last night, host Brian Kenney made a lengthy and passionate argument in favor of Edgar. Surprisingly, it even brought a tear to my eye. It occurred to me right then that Geoff Baker can never, ever fully understand why so many of us love and respect Edgar. He didn’t watch him play like we did.
I heard Costas’ argument, and it gave me more pause than expected as I am a huge EDGAR advocate. Costas listed five or six contemporaries of Edgar who were good/great players and are not in the hall of fame and/or got fewer votes. He asserted that no GM would have been willing to trade any of those player straight up for Edgar. I wish I remembered the player list, because it was an interesting way to frame the argument. That isn’t exactly a “populist” argument in my opinion, as GMs are not a completely uninformed class.
Asserting that GM judgement is a reasonable surrogate for good sense is shakey ground though, as is asserting how they might have acted. However, the trade value is an interesting way to think of relative value, if not relative merit.
The first closer to ever get elected, being Hoyt Wilhelm, went through the regular struggles of voters saying a closer would never get in the Hall; I see Edgar going through the same thing and having a progression similar to Wilhelm.
I wasn’t expecting any more than the percentage that Edgar received, being his first ballot.
Year Pct
1978 41.7%
1979 38.9%
1980 54.3%
1981 59.4%
1982 56.9%
1983 65.0%
1984 72.0%
1985 83.8%
I don’t read Baker’s work at all, but I know he’s the guy who had Silva’s back when he basically called out the entire team last year. His reasoning was that Silva’s a veteran, and a veteran should do that. Nevermind the fact that Silva was arguably the worst player on the team, and either spent his time getting rocked when he was on the mound, or sitting on his butt because he was injured. Sorry, but the guy has zero credibility because of that as far as I’m concerned.
Also, am I the only one who is happy with Edgar’s showing? 36% is a lot more than I thought he would get. I was expecting somewhere in the 25-30% range. I have to say I’m surprised to see people so upset with his total.
I’ve always thought that the voters should have to pass some sort of test that verifies that they have basic understanding of baseball, baseball numbers, baseball history, and what causes teams to win and lose baseball games.
Just give them an IQ test. Anyone scoring below 50 doesn’t get a vote.
I don’t think that the DH was meant to be “lumped in” with relief pitchers as much as it was cited as an example of another position that is a “part time” player. i.e. there are relievers in the hall, so the DH should also be allowed.
Point taken. But I was more referring to the difference between writers hired by a (supposedly) neutral entity and announcers hired directly by the team.
Good point, MissingEdgar, about Costas’ trade argument. Costas is a smart guy and knows the weaknesses or flaws in his own argument better than we do, I’m sure. Focussing solely on hypothetical trades of hitter-for-hitter, there can be many rational reasons why GM’s would not have made those trades that do not reflect the ultimate value of the players over the entirety of their career. I’ll use one example that seems fair, but illustrates my point: a Molitor-type player for a Strawberry-type player. Before he struggled with personal demons, Straw-man appeared headed for a HOF-caliber career. Molitor, on the other hand, became the Energizer bunny who just kept on going. Nobody could’ve known how his career was going to unfold and then sustain itself, particularly “smart” GM’s who wouldn’t have traded a Daryl for a Paul. Similarly, many of the guys that GM’s wouldn’t have traded for an Edgar wouldn’t have been traded for a Molitor either.
36% is actually a very promising beginning, as support generally grows for a player over time, and most players who begin in the 25%-50% range have ultimately made the Hall.
Of course, it’s impossible to know just how many of those “No” votes are hard (they will never ever vote for Edgar) or soft “No” votes that can be convinced over time. And though we have no way of knowing, I’m guessing that Edgar did better among younger voters than older (somebody can probably check the votes we do know about), which means that over time, as newer voters gain BBWAA membership, his chances will improve.
I have read some of the MLB Baseball writers reasoning for their HOF voting, but from who I HAVE read – the reasoning for NOT casting a vote for Edgar Martinez was not convincing, while reasoning FOR election seemed pretty strong. But I wonder: how can ANY NL writer vote on a player they have NEVER SEEN? As we know, Edgar never made it to a World Series, and until inter-league play, no writer from the NL would have seen the man hit – let alone play defense early in his career. One writer said he was basing his vote on a gut feeling. Another said “you just know a HOF-er when you see him.” Another said his candidate had to be “feared” by opposing players or teams. How can these jokers say that, when there is evidence – not only stats, but players interviews directly stating the contrary? I feel NL writers have no business voting if they haven’t covered the players. There is a bias right from the get go. True, most players these days play in both NL & AL at some point in their careers – but don’t penalize a player for the position they play, especially the player whose name is synonymous with that position – so much so, that the Commissioner of Baseball renamed the MVP award for that position after that player.
Just out of curiosity would Ichiro be a LOCK on his first try into the HoF? And how many percent would he receive? I personally think he is a lock, but I wanted to hear some other opinions.
If Ichiro hits .250 this year then no.
I know Dave has defended Geoff for his vote, but after reading his comments on McGwire this guy should not be looked upon with any credibility except to report. His opinion is completely worthless. The conclusions he arrives at shows his lack of understanding of the game.