Is Omar Vizquel a HOFer?

[Eight]

I like OPS just fine. It's just a number. I just don't like what some people do with it.

There's lots of numbers, and none of them tell you everything you need to know.

OPS overstates SLG, so it was the perfect number for the Roids Era.

I like good baseball players. Aparacio was the prototype SS for his generation. He was honored and respected by his peers, which is how Bill James says you're supposed to value players, and it's why he's in the HOF, which is exactly where he belongs. Sorry you don't like his OPS.

Can you provide a link/quote for where Bill James says that a players value is related to how much they are "honored and respected by his peers"? It would seem that such a view would run starkly in contrast to his use of statistical analysis.

And if Aparicio was so honored and respected, why didn't he get into the Hall on his first five tries?

[Old#5fan]

Can you provide a link/quote for where Bill James says that a players value is related to how much they are "honored and respected by his peers"? It would seem that such a view would run starkly in contrast to his use of statistical analysis.

And if Aparicio was so honored and respected, why didn't he get into the Hall on his first five tries?

Um, lets see. I will try this one. Maybe because he was up against better candidates?:rolleyestf:

[Old#5fan]

Can you provide a link/quote for where Bill James says that a players value is related to how much they are "honored and respected by his peers"? It would seem that such a view would run starkly in contrast to his use of statistical analysis.

And if Aparicio was so honored and respected, why didn't he get into the Hall on his first five tries?

Can you supply a link/quote where Bill James determines who makes the Baseball Hall of Fame?:scratchchinhmm:

[RShack]

Can you provide a link/quote for where Bill James says that a players value is related to how much they are "honored and respected by his peers"? It would seem that such a view would run starkly in contrast to his use of statistical analysis.

I believe he made that case in the Historical Baseball Abstract. And, actually, while his point did include the players' peers, I think it also included other observers of the era, such as sportswriters. The crux of his point was that you have to go by the standards of the time, that it's wrong to go back and retroactively apply the standards of one era to a different era.

[mweb]

Here's something James says about Aparicio in his Abstract, who he ranks 14th among SS's as of 2002:

"Aparicio was a brilliant shortstop, a poor leadoff man. At the time, the perception was that Aparicio was one of the best leadoff men in baseball, because, because he stole bases; he led the AL in stolen bases his first nine seasons in the league. But each stolen base increases expected runs scored by only .20; a caught stealing decreases expected runs by .35; thus, Aparicio in his best base-stealing seasons(1959-1961) increased his runs scored by only seven. Since he rarely walked and wasn't a .300 hitter, his on-base percentage was poor, and his base stealing didn't begin to offset that. He never scored 100 runs in a season, even once, and was never among the league leaders in runs scored."

BTW, Vizquel not in his top 20 at the time.

[BaltimoreTerp]

What TGO said. His stealing bases and bunting are already accounted for in the numbers I posted. Without credit for his base stealing Aparicio would be about 50 runs worse than an average shortstop for his era.

Don't be so quick to eviscerate numbers you know nothing about.

It's strange that your prior posts seem to indicate that you're a tiny HOF advocate - that only the very, very, very best of all time should be in Cooperstown. But now you're strongly advocating the credentials of someone who quite clearly doesn't fit that mold.

Edit: one other thing. Aparicio was his era's Rickey Henderson like Manute Bol was his era's Wilt Chamberlin. Or like Dick Stuart was the 1960s version of Albert Pujols. In other words, only in the most superficial way. Henderson scored 100 runs in a season more times his first full year in the majors than Aparicio did in his whole 18 year career. Henderson reached based nearly 2000 times more than Aparicio.

Terrible comparisons you just made. Totally incomparable. Niether Bol nor Stuart ever sniffed the HOF. If you are going to make comparisons at least compare a strong and a weaker HOF player. :rolleyestf:Again you are also comparing different eras. Had Ricky Henderson had to face pitchers throwing off the higher mound in larger parks when pitching was dominant I doubt he puts up numbers like that. I am not saying Henderson wasn't a much better offensive player than Aparicio but you need to put him in context to the era he played in. You are severely handicapped in making any kind of correct judgment of Aparicio being HOF worthy because of never seeing him play and witnessing the impact he had on the game he was in. His presence defensively and offensively (mainly due to his speed and bunting ability) made him a force to be reckoned with and not some mediocre player like you suggest who somehow reached the HOF mysteriously. And it is not strange how I judge a player being HOF worthy. I judge them from what I have personally witnessed or in the case of guys like Ruth and Gehrig, what I have read.

You know, you only answered about 15% of that post. You completely ignored the rest, even though it was the real point: you are criticizing things you either don't or don't want to understand. And then ignoring the responses.

I'd really like to hear what you have to say on the rest of that post, and I'm sure others are, too.

[DrungoHazewood]

I believe he made that case in the Historical Baseball Abstract. And, actually, while his point did include the players' peers, I think it also included other observers of the era, such as sportswriters. The crux of his point was that you have to go by the standards of the time, that it's wrong to go back and retroactively apply the standards of one era to a different era.

He did have an input to his rankings for opinion of a player's peers. That was in the original Historical Abstract. Long before he spent 15 years developing, and publishing Win Shares and refining it with Loss Shares. He was working with limited information in 1985. In the absence of better data subjective inputs can sometimes be a halfway decent proxy for that data.

You and Migrant Redbird often point out how skeptical Bill James is about statistical analysis. You use such a quote as your tagline, and MR started a whole thread using Ryan Ludwick to jump into the topic. But this point rings hollow when made about someone who spent a large portion of the 1990-present period inventing what's arguably the most complex statistical method ever devised for ranking baseball players, and who has published two lengthy volumes - one explaining said system in painstaking detail, the other using that statistical analysis system (and nothing else) to rank the top 100 players at each position.

Sure he's skeptical of analysis, and takes into account subjective opinions of peers. As should anyone in this field. But he also realizes that statistical analysis is a fundamental tool that is absolutely critical to any analysis or ranking of baseball players.

When James says he doesn't like OPS (which he does quite often) it's not because he thinks it turns fans into advocates of robot fantasy baseball who go out of their way to ignore defense. He just thinks that RC/27 is more accurate.

[Sanfran327]

Um, lets see. I will try this one. Maybe because he was up against better candidates?:rolleyestf:

That doesn't mean anything... I'm pretty sure a HOF voter can vote for as many players as he wants. He could vote in everyone on the ballot if he chooses, although that doesn't really help his credibility. If there happens to be 37 legit candidates, then I'm pretty sure you can vote for 37 players.

Also, I know (or at least I heard) that Cal was the closest player to be a unanimous pick to be a first-ballot HOFer. Who in the hell WOULDN"T vote for him? I think he was 1 or 2 votes from being perfect... what gives? I guess it was probably just a couple of guys not voting for him knowing that their non-vote wouldn't make any difference other than him not benig unanimous. That's understandable.

[BaltimoreTerp]

That doesn't mean anything... I'm pretty sure a HOF voter can vote for as many players as he wants. He could vote in everyone on the ballot if he chooses, although that doesn't really help his credibility. If there happens to be 37 legit candidates, then I'm pretty sure you can vote for 37 players.

Also, I know (or at least I heard) that Cal was the closest player to be a unanimous pick to be a first-ballot HOFer. Who in the hell WOULDN"T vote for him? I think he was 1 or 2 votes from being perfect... what gives? I guess it was probably just a couple of guys not voting for him knowing that their non-vote wouldn't make any difference other than him not benig unanimous. That's understandable.

1) I think the limit is ten on the ballot, but don't hold me to it.

2) Cal wasn't unanimous because some persons who somehow hold jobs with legitimate media outlets despite not being qualified to post on the Orioles' Yahoo! boards decided to use that vote as a protest against steroids.

[RShack]

2) Cal wasn't unanimous because some persons who somehow hold jobs with legitimate media outlets despite not being qualified to post on the Orioles' Yahoo! boards decided to use that vote as a protest against steroids.

I don't think anybody's unanimous.

Has anybody been unanimous since Babe Ruth?

I think they make a point of protecting that status, so nobody gets it unanimously. Nobody.

ps: They did the same thing in the Electoral College. James Monroe would have been unanimous the second time, but 1 guy voted against him. People disagree about why, but one theory is that they wanted to protect George Washington's status as the only guy who was ever elected unanimously to be President.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I don't think anybody's unanimous.

Has anybody been unanimous since Babe Ruth?

I think they make a point of protecting that status, so nobody gets it unanimously. Nobody.

ps: They did the same thing in the Electoral College. James Monroe would have been unanimous the second time, but 1 guy voted against him. People disagree about why, but one theory is that they wanted to protect George Washington's status as the only guy who was ever elected unanimously to be President.

Nobody has been unanimous, for whatever reason. Honestly, anyone who wouldn't vote for someone to the Hall of Fame simply so that there won't a unanimous vote shouldn't have a vote, because they obviously don't have the vision or respect for the sport to hold such an honor.

As for Ripken, there was at least one column, and probably more, where the writer specifically mentioned the steroid era as their reason.

As for the electoral college...let's not go there :laughlol: