hall of fame, next vote...

I think the problem is that some people (on this thread?) are confusing "game-calling" with "pitch-framing"...

I totally understand the difference, which is my I'm a little skeptical of such a drastic upgrade. If game-calling were included--except how in the world could you measure that, without making all sorts of assumptions?--along with fooling umpires, I'd be less skeptical.

ya, these are good points.

and i had only mentioned game-calling as a general reason why a catcher could produce more value than any other position player, btw.

you'd also have to account for how often a manager is calling for pitches

i am totally willing to admit that WAR has historically undervalued catchers, but this just suggests that WAR is an inadequate measurement that will be adjusted up or down willy nilly.

i don't know if inadequate is the word, but imperfect would definitely be accurate. i would guess this kind of large noticeable sudden adjustment will happen again, as analysts keep honing in on the best way to measure defensive value at other positions. but i'd also guess that this pitch-framing adjustment will be the biggest of its kind.

oh hey, here's some recent data that completely wrecks the standard we've been using for years

it does wreck the standard, especially because it only covers the last 10 years. there's no way to see how much more godlike johnny bench would be, or someone like gabby hartnett. even for some contemporary players like yadi, the data is missing for the first few years of their careers. it's a fucking mess. people like jay jaffe are probably popping boners left and right because it means they get to spend the next year re-writing their hall of fame articles AGAIN.

but also, a lot of old schoolers were pissed when the dinosaur James people started gaining influence. the cardinals broadcasters still can't say "OPS" (AN INCREDIBLY BASIC STAT) without using the "i can't believe i'm saying this" tone of voice, and they i'm sure they'd think any sort of index-based stat like OPS+ is like totally incomprehensible rocket science nerd shit. i'm sure they got pissed when people started messing up the baseball card stat standards of .300, 500 home runs and Wins, or whatever.

ultimately i do think that new stats will kind of hone in on a new equilibrium, but it's going to be different in the statcast era, and there are likely going to be more of these standard-fucking adjustments before it's all said and done

catchers are on the receiving end of every pitch thrown by their team in a game, sometime (not always) calling all those pitches – and I think we have way underestimated how much they can affect the game from back there.
a catcher who is talented behind the plate and also an asset as a hitter being worth 9 wins make sense to me.

i think this is otm. Those of us familiar with WAR have gotten really comfortable with the idea of a very good player being worth 5-6 WAR. a very good non-catcher position player is worth about that much over the course of a season, playing nearly every game. a good starting pitcher is also worth about that much, which really is just a huge coincidence - starting pitchers participate in much fewer games, of course, but it's almost perfectly balanced out by them being so important when they do play, and it still comes out to 5-6 WAR for a very good SP.

we've also internalized the idea that a good relief pitcher, even an elite one, won't be worth 5-6 WAR, because they just aren't involved in enough plays over the course of a season.

and we've also gotten used to the idea of catchers of very good catchers being worth maybe 4 WAR or so, because they tend to play fewer overall games per season. that's part of the reason that this bump to give people like brian mccann a 8.9 WAR season is kind of an extra shock. even for the more renowned elite guys, it seems strange. mike trout no longer had the highest fWAR in 2012, with 10.1. now it's buster posey, with 10.4.

but when you think about it, catchers are kind of like Shohei Ohtanis - when they play, they're part of every single play on the defensive side, and they're also contributing offensively. it makes sense that their WAR would settle in a little higher than a normal position player, just like the WAR for a relief pitcher is lower than other positions. i think that's just something we'll have to have to get used to.

I've thought that WAR undervalues catchers for a while now, I hope these adjustments are just the beginning.

does it undervalue them systematically though? it seems that if some are better than average at pitch-framing, others must be a negative in terms of value

I guess that's still an open question. I'm sure there are other "hidden" values for catchers, I'm sure not all of them are systematic undervaluations. Once we can assign numbers to some of them then it might become clearer.

If you were to add on 2 WAR each for pitch framing, game calling, game management, effective blocking (plus whatever other skills might belong on the list) then you'd have 15 WAR seasons from catchers which I don't think anyone would believe. But I also can't believe that the best catchers, taking into account the physical and mental tolls of the position, don't sniff the top 20 or 30 overall leaders in WAR most years.

I guess that's still an open question.

ok I actually read the article and it's actually not an open question, some catchers were bumped up and some were bumped down. which makes sense -- you're comparing them against each other

There are definitely some in both directions, but I don’t think you can assume the overall effect comes out to 0. They’re being compared to a replacement level player, not an average major league player. So the overall effect could still be a positive one, right? tbh I’m not sure

I don't think so? for example baserunning is in runs above average, UZR is runs above average...the replacement adjustment comes after all that is sorted out. at least that would be my guess

Yeah, but what I’m saying is (and I’m on an iPhone sorry) a catcher could be below average pitch framing (negative compared to the index of 0) but still get a slight WAR boost if they’re still better than a hypothetical replacement catcher. In other words, some catchers may be below average in pitch framing, but when the effect of pitch framing is incorporated into WAR it’s still a positive one - they’re stealing strikes at a level below the MLB average but above a replacement player.

Note: this is a wild guess! And I understand that some catchers are so bad at it that the WAR effect is negative - they’re worse than replacement. But I’d think it would be possible for the overall systematic effect to be positive, because it’s accounting for an aspect of catcher value that wasn’t there before. And if the overall effect does lean positive, that would be compensated for by a small negative effect among pitchers

hmm. this would be a great question for the fangraphs chat!

I’m kinda surprised that they didn’t post some sort of supplementary article talking about the ramifications of all this

I wouldn't be surprised if we found a technology that allows to track pitch framing before 2008 (and after once all games were televised) which could also alter say Piazza, Carter or Posada's WAR totals.

WAR is going to be ever changing as long as is we assume there is fog wrt to the defensive aspect to the game so I'm cool with wily nily changes. Franchises seem to cook with their own data sauces anyway. I don't think the financial value of catchers is going to change a lot, if it does it is bound to be positive.

Since there are no other Hall of Fame arguments going on at the moment, I would just like to state what seems obvious. A place in the Hall of Fame is an honor to be given to those most worthy of admiration and respect. It is not a paycheck to be awarded based on a resume.

— Bill James Online (@billjamesonline) April 7, 2019

Not obvious enough, because I'm not quite sure what that means...Harold Baines, yes; Curt Schilling, no? I don't think James actually believes that, so further explanation required.

this season Mike Trout has passed these players in career bWAR:

Vic Willis
Dave Winfield (he was tied with these two at the start of the season)

Roy Halladay
Willie McCovey
Reggie Smith
Clayton Kershaw(!)
Andrew Dawson
Chase Utley
Craig Biggio
Ed Walsh
Amos Rusie
Willie Randolph
Luis Tiant
Goose Goslin
Pee Wee Reese
Buddy Bell
Duke Snider
Joe Cronin

assuming he winds up with a 10 bWAR season (seems like a reasonable assumption??) he'd pass almost 50 additional players.

you all remember good old Andrew Dawson of course

assuming he winds up with a 10 bWAR season (seems like a reasonable assumption??)

Things that only make sense on a Mike Trout thread

Andrew "The Hak" Dawson

Trout's passed a few more dudes in bWAR since that post a few weeks back:

Zack Greinke (seems to really be the current-era Mussina, with higher highs and less consistency early on)
John Smoltz
Robinson Cano
Red Ruffing
Al Simmons
Eddie Murray
Ivan Rodriguez
Carlton Fisk (the two Pudges next to each other in bWAR, v cute)
Edgar Martinez
Jim Palmer
Carl Hubbell
Kenny Lofton
Graig Nettles
Ryne Sandberg
Fred Clarke
Kevin Brown
Ernie Banks
Roberto Alomar
Don Drysdale
Dwight Evans
Don Sutton
Tony Mullane

*current Mussina in terms of quietly building that HOF case

Tony Mullane - I was there the day that he went into the Reds Hall of Fame. Mullane had been dead since 1944, but it is still cool. The guy was born in Ireland.

Felix, Verlander, and Sabathia are all scrambled up right now. The best of them, Felix, may fall short because of health (unless it's a mid-career blip); the least impressive, CC, may be back in the picture after he looked dead. Verlander, who knows.

― clemenza, Monday, June 19, 2017 7:49 PM (two years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

two years pass....

Felix is looking not just like a guy who won't make the HOF but he probably won't even come close, like possibly sub-5% first time out. It's really unfortunate, he turned 33 just a couple months ago and could have put up some crazy numbers but things don't always work out...

Sabathia has been pretty solid the past few years and added to his WAR total and i have no idea what the HOF voters will make of him. He's so much better than Morris, but in the end his career will fall short of a few other contemporaries who seem "arguable".

Verlander is first-ballot at this point.

i think cc's probably in; he got the 3000 K, he got the 250 wins, and i think we're getting to the point where there won't be too many more starters like that

also i think he should go in as a brewer, because that was pretty much the only time he was truly dominant

I hope on Bernie's slide

i had wondered about Ortiz getting in on the first ballot but now i think he makes it in easily the first time around...

clearly Felix needs to get himself shot.

there's no particular reason for ortiz to go in before manny tho

Manny needs to also get shot

i mean all the intangibles involving Ortiz winning a third WS title, finishing his career in Boston with a season on par w/his peak era, being generally beloved by everyone, getting wounded by an idiot assassin...he will get in before Manny for sure.

those are all basically tangible

i guess they are fairly tangible...

i think he does deserve to make it personally, Morbs i suspect maybe you're not exactly "con" on that point but more ambivalent...?

Ortiz getting in on "lovability" will surely crack the door for Bonds Mcguire Clemens et al

I continue to be interested in David Price's case.

There are definitely pitchers ahead of him--obvious ones like Kershaw and Scherzer, but probably Lester and Hamels, too. I think he's plugging along, though.

His two biggest obstacles will be wins and WAR. (Or, by the time he comes up for induction, WAR and wins.) He's 33 and has won 149, so he may--should--get to 200. I'd say getting to 200 is important. He's at 40 WAR; he'll probably end up between 50-55. That'll be a tough sell.

Everything else is good. His ERA+ is 125, his FIP is right in line with his good career ERA, he's just shy of a strikeout per inning, has good WHIP and K/BB ratios. And other stuff: ace of many staffs, a Cy Young, a WS title, and--counteracting his poor overall postseason numbers (which was a story)--his great WS last year (I still think he should have won MVP).

He's in a precarious spot--if he doesn't do much from this point forward, he could conceivably drop off the ballot after a year. But 4-5 more solid years and I think he has a chance.

if you give him the benefit of the doubt and say that 2020-24 will be as good as 2015-19, he'd get to 200 wins and 60 WAR. but i just don't think he's got much of a chance. maybe better than Felix, on par w/Lester and Hamels, not as good as CC, nowhere near as good as Scherzer/Kershaw/Verlander, nor Greinke for that matter.

I'd say that has him about exactly right, with Lester/Hamels. I'd give him a slight edge over those two because of his Cy and two ERA titles, plus he has two years on them.

And throw in Chris Sale as one of the guys ahead of him. Kluber--33 and in the midst of a terrible season--hard to say at this point.

Kluber was top-tier for a few seasons but he'd have to recover and pitch close to that form and clear 200 wins to have a chance, i think. otherwise he'll be in Santana/Saberhagen territory.

i'd put Greinke ahead of Price as well.

kluber wasn't even a full-time big league starter until he was 27 -- he's been extremely good but just getting the appropriate quantity is almost impossible

I think Greinke's having the best HOF-directed season of anybody this year (along with Verlander). He was in very good shape going into the season, he may be close to a lock now.

oh right – Verlander too.

price has broken 4 bWAR in three seasons and 5 in just one

and verlander probably should have won price's cy young

Because they have to follow through on the premise, obviously some of these are silly--they even put "likeliest" in quotation marks in the title.

https://www.mlb.com/news/every-team-s-next-hall-of-famer

Of the legitimate picks, I disagree with one: no knock on C.C., but I think Stanton's a better choice for the Yankees, assuming his current injury isn't long-term serious.

500 HR: 27 players
3,000 K: 17 pitchers
600 HR: 9 players

I guess it depends on whether you think Stanton will hit 500 or 600 HR. I'm guessing 600.

If you use the Favorite Toy, he has a 96.9 % chance of hitting 500 and a 46.9% chance of hitting 600.

Sounds reasonable. That'll drop, maybe quite a bit, going into next season, but the drop would be artificial if you assume the injury's a blip.

I would not assume the injury is a blip

I thought it was something he's coming back from 100%. If that's not true, you can throw out everything I've said--even if he got to 500 with a few average seasons, I doubt very much he'd go in.

something funky is defintely going on w Stanton, the official word on his injury (injuries?) has been shifting and vague both times on the IL.

There is something about the way he moves even when healthy, a kind of rigidity to his motions, that has me feeling he won't perform well deep into this contract.