hall of fame, next vote...

http://blogs.fangraphs.com/brian-mccanns-great-career-and-fascinating-hall-of-fame-case/

Haven't read it, but, again, you're into Sundberg/Boone/McCarver territory again. I just don't see it.

Mccann doesn’t deserve to be in the hof because we don’t need to celebrate any more redasses

McCarver doesn't turn up on McCaan's BR comps, but they're relatively close in WAR:

McCaan - 31.8 for his career, 7.6 of that for defense
McCarver - 28.3 for his career, 6.4 of that for defense

They both played in the postseason alot: 143 PA for McCaan, 103 for McCarver. (McCarver's postseason presence greater in the context of era.) McCaan drew MVP support twice, McCarver once--but McCarver finished second. They both have names that begin with McC.

don't think elite framing was a McCarver skill

mccann never won a gold glove, which is the true arbiter of defense

I'm a little slow on statistical shifts, so I'm not sure if I want to start inducting catchers into the HOF whose biggest selling point is pitch-framing. Putting that aside, though, if McCarver had been great at that too, would analysts know? Is that extracted from traditional stats?

no, we'd need Statcast-type data from that era

(afaik)

Tim being 2nd in MVP voting is craaazy tho, even tho he had his best year by far in '67

mccann, yadi, russell martin and kurt suzuki all got massive boosts in defensive fWAR in 2008 (when the framing metrics kicked in). suzuki immediately plummeted the following season (tbf, 2008 was also his best CS% season). martin's went down 50% in 2009. mccann and yadi remained high for a few years, then spent a few years 50% lower, and now are still a bit above average.

framing is obviously only one component of a catcher's defensive value, but it also seems like one that should neither vary much from year to year nor fade dramatically with age. (maybe i'm wrong there?)

my other complaint is that WAR is supposed to enable us to compare players across eras/ballparks/offensive climates/etc -- and if framing is this huge a factor, we cannot retcon the catchers of the past because we don't have the data. there are simply catchers before 2008 and catchers after 2008, and it should be clearly stated that they are not comparable.

according to fWAR, mccann was 0.1 win less valuable in 2008 than albert pujols, who hit .357/.462/.653. that is possible, but it's not obvious why.

and fwiw, we know that the clubs have more advanced data than is publicly available, and good framing catchers do not seem especially valued in the market -- at least not enough to pay a premium for it

(xpost) Both McCarver and winner Cepeda were well behind Aaron/Santo/Clemente in WAR. That was just before I started watching baseball...The only thing I know is that there was a mystique attached to those Cardinals teams, partly tied in with racial issues of the day. Hard to gauge that stuff through the fog of time. The Cardinals dominated MVP voting that year: 7 of the top 17 vote-getters.

I was thinking Lance Parrish might be a good analog for McCann. The list on Baseball Reference looks about right.

Brian McCann Similar Batters

Jorge Posada (894.9)
Lance Parrish (891.0)
Bill Freehan (879.3)
Javy Lopez (868.9)
Benito Santiago (860.5)
Jason Varitek (847.9)
Russell Martin (839.7)
Ernie Lombardi (831.1) *
Darrell Porter (830.2)
Sherm Lollar (827.8)

and fwiw, we know that the clubs have more advanced data than is publicly available, and good framing catchers do not seem especially valued in the market -- at least not enough to pay a premium for it

― mookieproof, Tuesday, October 15, 2019 4:08 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

There is two things I want to mention: 1, I think we nerds ignore how much salaries are determined by marketability rather than advanced metrics. 2, undervaluing by ownership might just be more sinister than discussions about skill evaluations.

Absolutely agree that it is getting frustrating WAR allows for less and less catchers across different eras/ballparks/offensive factors etc.

As for '67-68 Cardinals' "mystique"... the reason they dominated MVP voting is that the BBWAA seemed even lazier when there was a 10-team single pennant race. ie 1) pennant winner 2) basic counting stats 3) "intangibles" that could be made up on the spot. Ballot done.

While they were one of the more integrated teams to win at that point, I find the '50s Dodgers and '70s Pirates more compelling on that score.

Salaries are also determined by star power (sells merch/seats) which is why teams tend to overpay for over-the-hill talent.

I'll keep saying it until you guys ban me: defensive WAR is fool's gold. It pains me how much the BBWAA have relied/will rely on such a flawed metric for end of year (and HOF!) votes.

speaking of banning, who are the ILB mod(s)? just the dearly departed steve shasta?

I'll keep saying it until you guys ban me: defensive WAR is fool's gold. It pains me how much the BBWAA have relied/will rely on such a flawed metric for end of year (and HOF!) votes.

― Jersey Al (Albert R. Broccoli), Wednesday, October 16, 2019 11:49 AM (nine minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Do you mean that we will never figure out good metrics for defensive evaluation or that right now those evaluations are inadequate?

i don't think defensive WAR is a bedrock stat for the writers; it is a factor among many in which they judge a player's defense

That McCann/Pujols '08 fWAR thing above is...

I don’t really trust any of the defensive catching metrics

shouting at guys who jog to first on pop-ups counts as an extra out, which fWAR accounts for.

The '64-'68 Cardinals had mystique--deserved or otherwise, that's just a fact. I was aware of that as a young fan in the early '70s, having read Roger Angell's accounts of the three World Series they were in. The Dodgers of the '50s had more, sure--tied in with a certain book--but the Cardinals had their own.

http://media1.fdncms.com/riverfronttimes/imager/u/blog/2573864/si_comparison_covers.jpg?cb=1454773020

so, cc sabathia

Epic career, but no. He had a Cy Young and made it to 3,000 Ks - best thing he had going for him was spending 10 years on the Yankees. Got him a lot of wins and post season games. But he never dominated or lead in much else aside from just pitching a lot. If he’d spent the last 10 years on the Twins, I don’t think he would be getting the same hof attention.

One man's "mystique" is another's "lotta press."

CC fairly close to Don Sutton's BWAR, while pitching a third less innings.

close comp to Drysdale too

Are you saying the Cardinals didn't have it or that it doesn't exist at all? A lot of press could just as easily explain Babe Ruth or Michael Jordan.

Obviously, Sutton's in for the 300 wins--if he'd fallen short, he'd probably be out there with Tommy John and Jim Kaat. (Sabermetrics rescued Bert Blyleven; I doubt that would have happened with Sutton, who's ahead of John in WAR but still short of 70.0.) Maybe, if WAR sticks around, a widely recognized benchmark will be established--70 seems to be the number right now for Jaffe-types. Sabathia's at 62.5, right where Kaat is. I'm on the fence with CC, and I think he'll be one of those guys who starts in the 40-50% range, and then, who knows.

Drysdale's in for...mystique!

Don’t forget to the fun name factor (1.01x)

Don’t forget to add all the words to your sentences, either

I don't know what Mystique (TM) *is*, other than it didn't get its Yankees tickets this week.

i keep going back and forth on CC, bc he did have a decent string of peak seasons but at the same time he does really seem sometimes like he's closer to a David Wells type than a Mike Mussina type, when looking at his entire career.

def not quite in Mussina's tier, careerwise

i don't want to mutter "compiler" but if we discuss peak there are a lot of pitchers out there who were much better and didn't last long enough at a diminished level to build up the career totals. Johan and Felix, to name a couple.

agnostic on his induction, but i kinda believe all hall of famers should have had a transcendent period during which they were, however fleetingly, the best in the game. and for cc, that second half with the brewers in 2008 counts.

CC was arguably not even the best lefty Cy Young winner Cleveland had during the '00s.

i thought for awhile he was going to wind up similar to Verlander, in that both had these good early indoctrination periods where they mastered their inherent talents before they peaked and won the Cy, followed by a depressing early decline, but Verlander's was just a blip on the radar and a bit of a mirage. CC wound up just having this very good middle period and a decline marked by occasional fine performances and outright terrible ones.

for me i guess the closest comparison is maybe Pettitte? a really fine and occasionally great pitcher who seems just outside HOF-worthy (though CC was better than Pettitte in terms of a consistent peak).

agnostic on his induction, but i kinda believe all hall of famers should have had a transcendent period during which they were, however fleetingly, the best in the game

Mostly agree with this, except 1) I think you can play/pitch at a slightly lower level if you do it long enough (something like Palmeiro, I guess), and 2) for me, Sabathia's transcendent period is too fleeting--I'd want two or three seasons where you're viewed as one of the best (half-dozen?) in the game.

i, too, prefer hall of famers to achieve transcendence (i'd say "among" the best in the game, not necessarily the very best) - the lower the height of peak transcendence, the longer it has to last. and then take that and divide by 5

and then there's the VC and Harold Baines

wow i don't think there's any need to bring venture capital or the viet cong into this

The Victory Condition for HOF has been lowered to “be at least as hall of famey as Harold Baines, at the very minimum”

Harold is a HOF with so many career highlights, baseball card companies had trouble narrowing it down to just one to cite

https://www.tradingcarddb.com/Images/Cards/Baseball/594/594-232Bk.jpg

hall of fame, next vote i care about... Bonds and Clemens

appreciate that they included a photo of harold getting fooled by a changeup

That card's perfect for Brendan C. Boyd's The Great American Baseball Card Flipping, Trading and Bubble Gum Book. "Harold & his wife have 4 children." Not to diminish the importance of repopulating the world, but I somehow can't see that turning up on Willie Mays' or Greg Maddux's card.

If CC doesn’t get in, the bar for the new generation is going to be really high. Pitchers with 70+ WAR won’t come up like it used too.

Great pitchers are the exception to whatever prevailing trends are around, so I don't know if usage patterns will much affect the existence or 70+ guys or not. Verlander's there, Greinke and Kershaw are about to be, Scherzer's close to a sure bet, Sale has a good shot, and Hamels, deGrom, Strasburg, Cole, Nola, and who knows who else are making realistic progress.

Not sure how that would compare to a snapshot of 1998 or 1984...There'll be more than that lost '80s generation of starters, for sure.

I don’t see how pitchers pitching fewer innings *couldn’t* lead to fewer guys passing a certain threshold...WAR is a counting stat after all

I'd want two or three seasons where you're viewed as one of the best (half-dozen?) in the game.

From 2007-9 he was certainly one of the best two or three pitchers in the game.

(xpost) I should have been clearer--when a Verlander or Scherzer comes along, they don't follow the prevailing trends.