My Trip to AT&T in San Francisco

Just back from the Giants/Pirates game. Here are some notes:

1. Rajai Davis is the most exciting player on the field. He's fast, he had a single, double and triple, and is already a fan favorite.

2. Whatever Matt Morris had in St. Louis, he does not have it now. He threw more balls than strikes. Even worse, he looked miserable. Maybe pitching for Pittsburgh and returning to your former team is depressing, but he ought to be showing a little more life on the mound. This was a horrible trade for Pittsburgh. They must know something about Davis that we don't.

3. Omar Vizquel can't hit anymore, but he executed a beautiful first-pitch squeeze down the third base line to score Davis after his triple.

4. Ray Durham uses a different bat, depending on which side he swings from. With a righty on the mound, he approached the plate with a black bat. When Jim Tracy replaced the pitcher with a lefty, Durham went into the dugout and traded the black bat for a blonde one.

5. The screen behind home plate at AT&T park is only about 15 feet high, meaning fans behind the plate have a better chance of catching foul balls.

6. Some of the seats at AT&T are actually closer to the batter than the pitcher is.

7. Although I missed the record-setting homer by 3 games, Barry went deep in his second at bat. I have a blurry picture, because the lady next to me bumped me while cheering.

Still, seeing #758 is better than seeing none at all. If I present my ticket at a Giants Dugout store tomorrow after 10:00 a.m., I get a commemorative pin with #758 on it.

8. Xavier Nady reached first on a Ray Durham error, making him the go-ahead run in the top of the 8th. Jim Tracy replaced him with a pinch runner. Good strategy, right? Eh, he replaced him with Ian Snell. Snell is certainly a more capable baserunner, but he's also the #2 guy in the pitching rotation and is a young prospect. I realize even losing teams still play to win, but is it really worth the injury risk to one of your young starters? It isn't like Pittsburgh's system is so full of talent it can afford to lose one. Plus, McLouth doubled to send Snell to third, meaning the runner would have reached third no matter who he was.

9. If you are a fantasy owner and have Brad Hennessey, check the news tomorrow. He only threw a dozen or so pitches, but when the inning was over and he was walking towards the dugout, he was shaking his right arm and holding it in an awkward position. He looked uncomfortable.

10. Other than Bonds and Davis (and Jason Bay if he turns it around), this was a collection of the weakest hitters and pitchers you can have in a major league game. Two of the better hitters on the rosters, Randy Winn and Xavier Nady, did not start.

11. A draft beer (domestic) is $7. A Guinness is $9.

12. There's a mini-AT&T park in left field, complete with mini-Jumbotron. Kids under a certain height go in and swing at underhand pitches, and run the bases if they make contact. It's pretty cool.

13. Sum total of kayakers: two, and I think they might have been Giants security personnel.

Cleveland's Hall of Fame Heritage

The Indians will be wearing #14 today, to honor Larry Doby. That's great, although it might upset Peter Bjarkman that they aren't wearing Clemente's number. :)

It is happening in conjuction with Hall of Fame Heritage weekend in Cleveland. At first I thought the Doby event would be watered down by the names of those being inducted into the Cleveland Indians Hall of Fame: Charles Nagy, Andre Thornton, Mike Garcia and Jim Bagby Sr. But to be fair, I decided to look at them individually.

Charles Nagy was essentially a major league average pitcher. He had some all-star quality seasons in 92, 94 and 96, but take those seasons away and there isn't much to say. He did pitch in Cleveland for 12 seasons. More importantly, he pitched for Cleveland during their ascendancy from decades-long doormats to frequent contenders. I think he is a borderline pick for a team Hall of Fame, but he may have a special relationship with Clevelanders.

Thornton was a good hitter in his day. Not an incredible hitter, considering he was penciled in as DH more than any other spot, just ahead of his games at 1b. But good. He spent 10 seasons in Cleveland. This selection makes sense to me for a team Hall of Fame, though he would probably not make even a Hall of the Very Good on a baseball-wide scale.

Mike Garcia is a much stronger case. He spent 12 seasons in Cleveland and until age got him, was one of the best pitchers in the American League. He has an almost .600 win percentage. Easily a team Hall of Famer. He was on the '54 pennant team. The only surprise is that it took this long. He retired 36 years ago, and I'm betting that Early Wynn, Bob Feller and Bob Lemon (his teammates in '54) are already in the team Hall of Fame (not to mention Cooperstown, with another '54 teammate, Hal Newhouser). Doby was on that team too.

Jim Bagby, Sr. pitched for 9 years in the bigs, from 1912 to 1923. Seven of those years were with Cleveland. Based on his stats, he appears to have been a pretty good pitcher, but not for very long. He had two or three all-star caliber seasons. His best was in 1917, when he had an ERA under 2.00 over nearly 321 innings and won 23 games. Of course, the league was a bit watered down by World War I, so he may have been preying on weak hitters. Not a strong selection.

All in all, I guess it isn't as bad as I first thought. Garcia is an excellent pick, Thornton a good pick, and Nagy and Bagby, Sr. just so so. I guess they couldn't use Manny, or Thome, or Lofton, since they are all playing for other teams. Albert Belle ought to be in there, but I bet that would be an unpopular decision.

I wonder, though, if Mike Hargrove is in the Indians Hall of Fame. I couldn't find a list of Indians Hall of Famers on their web site, though there was an alphabetical list of the 100 greatest Indians. All of the players named in this post are on the Top 100 list.

If Hargrove isn't in the Indians Hall of Fame, he should be -- both as a manager and a player -- and he probably needs the emotional boost.

Ankiel

You've got to admire this guy. A pitching phenom at age 19 and 20, he got the yips and had control problems that made Ricky "Wild Thing" Vaughn look like Greg Maddux. He tried to make a comeback in 2004, but only managed 10 uneventful innings. His last appearance was October 1, 2004, and he got the win, pitching four innings in relief. He had two plate appearances that year.

Nearly three years later, he was back in the lineup as an outfielder, and hit a homer in his 4th at-bat (after two strikeouts). That's truly a feel good story. It takes a hell of a lot of talent to reach the majors and be a better-than-average pitcher, and then re-reach the majors as a position player. Imagine the perseverance it takes to do that. To want something that badly.

How good was it? Tony LaRussa smiled. :)

Bonds Winks

Who was Bonds winking to after he hit the home run? After he scored, Barry turned back towards home plate, and I saw Nationals' catcher Brian Schneider applauding in the background. Bonds gave his Andre Agassi-like salute to the crowd, then turned towards home plate, pointed, and winked. I saw it on t.v. live, and I've watched the replay three times. He was not pointing into the dugout, or the crowd.

That's strange. Schneider has never been Barry's teammate. I'm not saying this happened, but the thought flashed through my mind that Schneider could have tipped the pitch. Of course, the pitch was so fat Barry didn't need a tip.

The other strange thing -- in contrast to what I remember about McGwire's record setting home run -- was that when Barry's son hugged him at the plate, Barry did not hug back. He stood with his arms over his head, and then turned back towards the dugout. It was like his son was hugging a tree. McGwire -- who I never liked -- was genuinely caught up in the moment with his boy. Barry did have warm hugs for his daughter, mom and wife, though. Maybe he was too distracted by the event.

ESPN Is Like A Soft Drink

When you use it everyday, it seems like it is really really good. But take a year off and then try it. Horrible. Sugary sweet.

I was in a sub shop and SportsCenter was on, with what could only be called massively repetitive coverage of Bonds' home run. Scott Somebodyorother tossed it out to Pedro Gomez, whom Scott told us has been living at AT&T Park for the last 3 months covering this story. Having exhausted every other possibility, Scott asked Pedro for his insight on the home run.

Gomez said what stuck out in his mind was Bonds' response to a question at the press conference. Someone asked Bonds whether he had any advice for the public in determining who the real Barry Bonds is. Bonds said "Don't listen to you guys," referring to the media. Some members of the media chuckled. Gomez was not amused. He said if Barry has a bad image, it is his fault, not the media's fault. He explained that the media just presents it the way it is. It isn't the media's job to make Barry's image. It is Barry's job to make his own image.

I'm not sure what to make of that. Gomez is saying one of two things: (1) the media reports everything with a 100% objective view; what you see is the "true reality" or (2) sure we distort the hell out of things, but it's Barry's job to manipulate us so that his image is not tarnished.

I believe Gomez was saying the first. That's incredibly naive, even for a reporter who tries/hopes to report things objectively. I'm not suggesting Gomez distorts reality, but to say the media is merely showing us the world as it is means that he doesn't understand the media. ESPN is a business, designed to make money, and the more titillating the story, the better the ratings. That's reality!

Suppose the reporters crowd around Barry's locker and he says "Get the hell away from me. I want to be with my kids right now." Does that make Barry an asshole? Because he doesn't want to talk to someone at ESPN? As if he has an obligation to let them make money off his story.

Do I think Barry is a jerk? Yes. But consider why I might think that. My only access to Barry is through what I see on television and read on the Internet. I'm willing to acknowledge that I don't really know if he is a jerk because it is filtered through the media. Funny that Pedro Gomez can't acknowledge that.

Here's the sugary sweet part of the report. After about 30 seconds of Pedro Gomez "reporting," Scott then says "I'm not in charge of scheduling, but GO HOME! Get some rest! You deserve it." Am I supposed to enjoy this office talk between the two ESPN guys? Why is that on the air? I find it difficult to believe Gomez is completely worn out because he has to watch baseball every day and report for 60 seconds on Barry Bonds. 90% of the country is working harder than he is. But even if he is pulling all nighters, so what? He's handsomely paid to do his job. I don't feel sorry for him.

It has become a real pet peeve of mine when the news/sports anchor thanks a reporter for his hard work, or otherwise engages in a personal conversation with the reporter. That's not part of the news. The reporter's job is to report. Why must the anchor, another paid member of the same organization, thank him for doing his job -- and thank him on the air?

Pitcher Predictions -- Results

The refinements to the Predict-A-Matic seem to work better. Or I'm just lucky.

Pitchers        IP  Hits  HR BB  SO  ER 4+Runs 5+Runs 
Wakefield (BOS) 6.1   6   0   2   3   2  23%    12%
                4.0   6   0   2   2   2  Grade: A-
Saunders (LAA)  5.1   7   0   3   3   3  36%    24%
                5.1   8   1   1   2   4  Grade: A
                

Bonser (MIN)    5.2   6   0   2   6   3  30%    16%
                7.0   9   0   0   3   4  Grade: B-
Bannister (KCR) 5.2   7   0   2   2   2  24%    14%
                7.0   6   0   1   1   1  Grade: A

Weaver (SEA)    5.1   7   0   1   2   2  28%    15%
                6.0  11   0   0   3   3  Grade: B+
Trachsel (BAL)  5.2   6   0   2   1   2  26%    15%
                5.2   8   1   3   1   2  Grade: A

Hammel (TBD)    5.2   9   0   6   5   6  75%    62%
                4.0  10   0   1   3   5  Grade: A-
Robertson (DET) 5.2   7   1   2   4   3  37%    23%
                7.2   9   1   0   9   3  Grade: C

Capuano (MIL)   5.1   6   0   2   6   3  32%    20%
                5.0   7   1   3   3   4  Grade: B
Hirsh (COL)     5.2   7   2   2   4   4  49%    32%
                6.0   3   0   2   2   2  Grade: C
 
Peavy (SDP)     6.2   5   0   1   6   1   7%     3%
                6.0   3   0   2   5   0  Grade: A
Reyes (STL)     5.1   6   1   2   4   3  31%    17%
                7.0   7   0   1   2   1  Grade: C

VandenHurk (FLA)4.1   5   2   2   5   4  55%    37%
                2.1   5   0   5   1   6  Grade: B-
Moyer (PHI)     6.0   7   2   1   6   4  48%    31%
                6.0   5   1   3   5   1  Grade: C

Bacsik (WSN)    5.1   7   0   2   1   3  36%    22%
                5.0   7   2   1   5   5  Grade: B-
Zito (SFG)      6.0   6   0   2   4   2  27%    15%
                5.0   6   3   3   2   4  Grade: C

Overall Grade: B

Hank Aaron

Aaron's scoreboard video message was nice, though a little too scripted, which made the presentation seem awkward. But the words were nice, and respectful, as you would expect from Aaron.

It was nice to see Barry get an incredible reception from the home crowd, but Aaron's message really dignified the event.

I'm sad to see Aaron's record fall. I strongly recommend his biography, "I Had A Hammer."

Bonds

It was a bomb.

Bacsik and Bonds both knew it instantly.

Bonds vs. Aaron...in a different way

I was watching Tim Lincecum bat (not pretty) and they showed Bonds sitting in the dugout chewing sunflower seeds. I wondered whether he saw a guy like Lincecum at the plate and laughed, or whether he has seen so much that it really doesn't affect him. Somehow, that segued into me wondering whether Barry ever sat in the dugout and enjoyed a teammate's at-bat, and from there, whether Barry every really played with any hitter he could admire. Only Jeff Kent immediately came to mind, and more slowly, Bobby Bonilla.

I decided to make a chart of the best players Barry played with as a teammate, with the same for Hank Aaron. I had the impression that neither player had a lot of talent surrounding him. I've ranked them based on nothing more than my own impressions...I have not verified the rankings via Win Shares, WARP or any other system.

Hitter List

#     Bonds             Aaron
1.    W.Clark           Mathews
2.    Kent              J. Torre
3.    Strawberry        Cepeda 
4.    E. Davis          Adcock 
5.    M. Alou           D. Baker
6.    Bonilla           Slaughter 
7.    K. Gibson         D. Evans 
8.    Burks             F. Alou 
9.    M. Williams       Carty 
10.   Van Slyke         B. Thomson
11.   Galarraga         D. Johnson

Pitcher List

#     Bonds             Aaron
1.    R. Reuschel       Spahn
2.    Nen               P. Niekro
3.    Hershiser         Wilhelm
4.    Nathan            Pappas
5.    R. Beck           S. Miller
6.    Righetti          Antonelli
7.    Reuss

Fielder List

#     Bonds             Aaron
1.    Vizquel           Schoendienst
2.    J.T. Snow         McMillan
3.    D. Lewis          Logan
4.    Grissom

Barry's hitting teammate list is a little better than expected. Still, there's only one probable Hall of Famer (Kent) and a couple of borderline guys (Clark and Vizquel), one of whom is there for defense alone. Nobody for Barry to "admire" since he and Kent didn't do a lot of admiring of each other. Barry's pitching teammates were not impressive, although Nen and Nathan were/are outstanding.

Aaron's hitting list is much better. Mathews is one of the best hitters in history and Slaughter is also in the Hall of Fame. Torre and Cepeda probably should be. Many have also argued for Darrell Evans' inclusion. Until you get to #9 on the list, Barry's teammates don't win the battle.

Aaron also wins the pitching list, with three bona fide Hall of Famers. I'd say Aaron's teammates win 1 through 6. Barry's defensive stalwarts might be better, though this could be because I'm less familiar with the defensive reputation of players in the 50s and 60s.

Interesting side note: Aaron played with a ton of future managers: Torre, LaRussa, Oates, Davey Johnson, Dusty Baker, Felipe Alou, Gaston, Dark, Deron Johnson, Billy Martin, Joe Morgan, Red Schoendienst and Chuck Tanner, as well as two of the most prominent hitting coaches in the last 30 years, Charlie Lau and Walt Hriniak (neither of whom could hit). And those are the just the guys whose names I recognized as managers.

Glavine Update

My prediction was wrong and Glavine got 300 before Barry gets his record. That's one prediction I don't mind getting wrong.

Only five lefties in history!

Roberto Clemente

In the latest issue of the SABR publication "The National Pastime," Peter C. Bjarkman makes an impassioned plea that Roberto Clemente should be accorded the same respect as Jackie Robinson for paving the way for Latino ballplayers.

Put aside for a moment the validity of that premise, which is easily challenged just by reading the article. As the article points out, Clemente was not the first (or second) Latin ballplayer, or even the first Latino all-star.

More troubling is that Bjarkman spends almost as much time depressing Robinson's on-field accomplishments as he does promoting Clemente's. About Robinson he says, "a 10-year .311 career batting average, barely1,500 base hits, less than 150 homers, a single league batting trophy and a half dozen All-Star game appearance [sic] hardly seem the key to Cooperstown." (emphasis added by me). The language is peppered with negativity.

Robinson, of course, also played in the Negro Leagues and he didn't reach the majors until he was 28 years old. Clemente hit the bigs at age 21.

I may be wrong, but in addition to Clemente being hispanic, isn't his skin black? Would Clemente have had a roster spot if not for Robinson, Larry Doby and the like? Did Clemente play under the same conditions as Jackie? Bad as they were for Roberto, they were much much worse for Jackie and Larry.

Bjarkman later says MLB has diminished the game's Latino heritage through its Latino Legends All-Star Team. Here, I agree, but not for the reasons stated in the article. See my post in 2005 on this topic. Bjarkman says MLB slighted "legitimate Hall of Famers" Tony Perez and Orlando Cepeda, in favor of "contemporary favorites" Vladimir Guerrero and Manny Ramirez.

First, it isn't a slam dunk that Tony Perez and Orlando Cepeda are Hall of Famers. Perez' OPS+ was 122. Hitting 22% better than the league average when you are at first base is not such a big deal. Cepeda's claim is stronger with an OPS+ of 133.

Guerrero? OPS+ of 148. Ramirez? OPS+ of 156!

Don't like OPS+? Here are their WARP numbers per 162 games from Baseball Prospectus: Perez (6.31); Orlando Cepeda (6.70); Vlad Guerrero (8.59); Manny Ramirez (9.78). Clemente, by the way, had 8.44 -- though I'm not arguing that Vlad or Manny have the same impact as Roberto.

In total WARP, the totals favor Ramirez, Perez, Guerrero and Cepeda, in that order. But remember, Ramirez and Guerrero are still playing. Vlad is only 31 years old. He's not done. Vlad and Manny are among the very best hitters of their generation, much more so than Perez and Cepeda.

I'm not sure if Clemente should have his number permanently retired a la Jackie, but I'm sure it isn't going to happen by trying to elevate him over Jackie, or by touting Perez and Cepeda as superior to Guerrero and Ramirez.

Is MLB really slighting Clemente by not putting him on the same level as Robinson? The Hall of Fame is for great players, and Clemente unquestionably belongs. Why isn't that enough?

What would you do with the 756th?

Though I live in Jacksonville, Florida, I happen to have a ticket to the August 10th game in San Francisco. I had a business trip scheduled, and wanted to see the park. It never occurred to me that Bonds would still be chasing the record.

There is NO chance I'll catch his home run ball. I'm sitting a few rows up from the home dugout. If I'm lucky I'll get a pop up.

There's no question in my mind, though, that if the ball came into my possession, it would belong to the Hall of Fame. I don't much like Barry Bonds, but that's not the point. Not everything has to fall prey to shameless commercialism.

Good for Morgan Ensberg

Two homers in his Padre debut. Take that, Houston!

Pitcher Prediction Evaluation

Pretty awful, but there were some very weird things going on today. Outlier performances are those performances that have less than a 15% chance of occurring. There were lots of those today. Outlier performances cannot be predicted.

Texas @ Cleveland

Pitcher    IP   H   HR   BB   SO   ER  5+Run%
Gabbard    4.1  5   1    4    4    4    38%
           5.2  8   0    1    4    3    Grade: D 
Westbrook  5.2  6   0    2    4    2    13%
           6.0  5   0    1    5    0    Grade: C

St. Louis @ Pittsburgh

Pitcher    IP   H   HR   BB   SO   ER  5+Run%
Reyes      5.1  6   0    2    4    2    13%
           5.0  4   0    3    4    3    Grade: B+
Youman     6.0  7   0    1    2    2    12%
           5.0  5   0    3    3    3    Grade: C

Baltimore @ Boston

Pitcher    IP   H   HR   BB   SO   ER  5+Run%
Guthrie    6.2  6   1    2    5    2    15%
           5.1  9   2    4    3    3    Grade: D
Wakefield  6.0  7   0    2    3    3    21%
           7.0  6   0    1    5    3    Grade: B-

Chicago (AL) @ New York (AL)

Pitcher    IP   H   HR   BB   SO   ER  5+Run%
Garland    6.1  7   0    2    2    3    21%
           1.1  9   1    0    1    8    Grade: F/outlier
Clemens    6.1  6   0    1    4    2     6%
           1.2  9   0    0    0    3    Grade: outlier
                 (38 pitches)

New York (NL) @ Milwaukee

Pitcher    IP   H   HR   BB   SO   ER  5+Run%
Lawrence   6.1  7   1    2    4    3    24%
           5.0  8   1    0    3    3    Grade: C
Capuano    5.2  6   0    2    4    3    12%
           6.0 10   2    1    8    5    Grade: outlier
                 (5 ER "<" 12%)

Philadelphia @ Chicago (NL)

Pitcher    IP   H   HR   BB   SO   ER  5+Run%
Lohse      6.0  7   0    2    4    3    26%
           1.0  2   0    1    0    1    Grade: outlier
                 (left with injury)
Marshall   5.2  5   0    2    4    2    13%
           2.2  9   1    1    2    7    Grade: outlier
                 (7 ER "<" 1%)

Arizona @ San Diego

Pitcher    IP   H   HR   BB   SO   ER  5+Run%
Petit      5.1  6   1    1    4    3    16%
           4.1  5   2    4    4    5    Grade: F
Peavy      6.2  5   0    2    8    2     7%
           7.0  3   0    1   10    0    Grade: B

Cincinnati @ Washington

Pitcher    IP   H   HR   BB   SO   ER  5+Run%
Dumatrait  5.2  7   0    2    3    3    22%
           3.1  8   0    3    3    6    Grade: D
Bacsik     5.2  7   1    1    2    3    25%
           7.0  3   2    0    6    3    Grade: F

Colorado @ Florida

Pitcher    IP   H   HR   BB   SO   ER  5+Run%
Hirsh      5.2  6   1    2    6    3    23%
           5.1  6   2    4    8    3    Grade: A-
VandenHurk 4.2  6   0    3    5    3    25%
           4.1  4   0    3    5    2    Grade: A

Houston @ Atlanta

Pitcher    IP   H   HR   BB   SO   ER  5+Run%
Williams   5.2  7   1    2    3    3    28%
           5.0 13   2    0    2    7    Grade: C-
Reyes      4.2  5   1    2    1    3    20%
           3.0  4   2    4    1    4    Grade: C-

Los Angeles (AL) @ Oakland

Pitcher    IP   H   HR   BB   SO   ER  5+Run%
Saunders   6.0  6   0    2    3    2    12%
           6.2  6   1    2    3    2    Grade: A
Gaudin     5.2  6   0    3    3    2    15%
           6.0  7   2    3    3    5    Grade: C-/outlier

San Francisco @ Los Angeles (NL)

Pitcher    IP   H   HR   BB   SO   ER  5+Run%
Zito       5.2  6   0    3    4    2    15%
           5.2  7   0    2    5    1    Grade: A
Tomko      6.0  8   0    3    4    4    35%
           5.0  5   0    3    1    3    Grade: B

Team Winners (Grade: D):
CLE(Y), PIT(Y), BAL(N), NYY(N), MIL(N), CHN(N), SD(Y), CIN(N), COL(N), HOU(Y), LAA(Y), SF(Y)

Overall grade: C

500 HR, 300 Wins or 755 HR?

Which is the toughest? I don't mean which is the toughest to achieve in a career. That's obvious.

I mean, if you are Rodriguez at 499, Glavine at 299 or Bonds at 754, how hard is it to get that one extra notch?

I'd say Rodriguez has it easiest. He's the youngest. He's going to get #500 and may eventually get 755. It's just a matter of time for him. He ought to take the same approach at the plate as always. It's a great accomplishment, but it will pale in comparison to other records he will eventually achieve.

Bonds has more media scrutiny, by far, and he's also the one of this group that is least likely to have fan support for his effort. That's some serious pressure. That pressure increases in San Francisco, because he wants to hit it for the home fans. But, like Alex, Barry's going to hit at least one home run before its over. He is going to break the record. So it's tougher for him than Rodriguez.

But I'd argue Glavine has it the toughest. Of the three, his skills have declined the most. He's hanging on as a 4th starter. In addition, he has less control over the situation. He can pitch great and get no run support. His defense can let him down, etc. It is likely he'll get the win, but it is possible that he strings together a bunch of no decisions or losses. The risk of injury is also higher for a pitcher.

I predict they happen in that order: Rodriguez to 500; Bonds to 755; Glavine to 300.

More Genius from ESPN

Watching the Mets/Brewers contest, the ESPN team was talking about the brilliance of John Schuerholz in making deals. No denying that as a general principle.

Steve Phillips cited the Teixeira deal, saying Schuerholz was able to land the biggest catch "without even giving up a major leaguer." Then, realizing the error, he corrected by saying "except Saltalamacchia, but he's a new major leaguer. Otherwise, just prospects."

Just prospects? Unless you are the Yankees or Red Sox, prospects are the heart of the organization. It is debatable whether Salty and the prospects for Teixeira is a good deal or not for the Braves, but even if it is, Teixeira was not stolen for mere prospects. Salty will probably be one of the 3 best catchers in the AL by next year, and that's nothing to sneeze at. If one of the five prospects becomes an average major leaguer, Texas will come out ahead, considering Teixeira's contract.

There's plenty of analysis of this trade elsewhere, and I won't rehash the arguments. But it is idiotic to act as though giving up prospects is like getting a superstar for free.

The scariest thing is that Steve Phillips was a general manager! Perhaps that's why he's broadcasting now.

Sac Flies: Smart Play?

Assume for a moment that players are trying to hit sac flies and they are not mere accidents or failures at the plate. John Walsh at The Hardball Times took a crack at this question in 2005, in this article. (Note, it does not address the question raised in my early post about why batters would be trying harder to hit sac flies with fewer strikes).

If the batters are trying to hit sac flies, is that smart?

We can use the average run expectation charts for 2007 to determine whether trying a sac fly makes sense.

Situation: 1 out, man on third. The RE for this is .975. If the sac fly succeeds, a run will score (1.0) and there will be two outs. Two outs and noone on base is .107. So if it succeeds, the RE is 1.107. If it fails, either because it doesn't result in a fly ball, or not a fly ball deep enough, there are two outs and a man on third, for an RE of .405.

The breakeven point is (.975-.405)/(1.107-.405) or 81.2%. The hitter has to succeed at least 81.2% of the time for this to be a smart play.

What if the hitter was trying to get a one base hit instead of trying for the sac fly? Assume failure is a strikeout and success is a single. That would be (.975-.405)/(1.528-.405) or 50.8%. Of course, no hitter can be expected to hit a single nearly 51% of the time.

Is it better to try for an 81% success rate on a sac fly, or a 51% success rate on a single? I don't know, but it seems like we'd judge in favor of a sac fly as the number of strikes on the hitter increases, since very few hitters are better with two strikes. Yet the data indicates far less success at sac flies as the strikes pile up.

The analysis is more complex when you factor in that walks, doubles, triples and homers are also safe possibilities for the hitter. Their break even points are: 69.9%, 43.2%, 36.3% and 30.4%. The probability of achieving those depends heavily on the hitter.

And of course, that's just one scenario. If it were men on second and third with no outs, the sac fly break even point would be (2.101-1.467)/(1.724-1.467) or essentially impossible to come out ahead.

Here are the breakeven points for sac flies in all the various base-out states (using 2007 RE):

Runners    Outs     Break Pt.
003          0        Never
003          1        81.2%
023          0        Never
023          1        Never
103          0        Never
103          1        98.9%
123          0        Never
123          1        Never

Even without factoring in the benefits of trying to get a base hit, the sac fly seems to be something you wouldn't attempt as a hitter except with a runner on third and one out. And then, you'd have to be 81% sure that you could do it, as opposed, to say, striking out.

By the way, Tim Kurkjian at ESPN was either bored, or he really likes the sac fly.

Sac Flies

After Chipper's two sac flies yesterday, I got to thinking about them. Really, who gives any real thought to sac flies. Is there a more boring way to score a run? I'm not sure. I think passed balls, wild pitches and errors are more exciting, because they are a surprise. They upset expectations. They make you say "Oh my god."

Sac flies make you frown and switch to another game on MLBtv.com.

I started to wonder if players actually try to hit sac flies to score runs, or if they really represent a failed plate appearance. I find it difficult to believe that a hitter, early in the count, is concentrating on a fly out instead of trying to get a base hit. I would think that players, once they get 2 strikes and the probabilities of a base hit have dwindled, look for a pitch they can get in the air to score the run. It's like saying, "I'm in a hole. I may get a hit, but probably not. How can I salvage this plate appearance? Maybe I can get it in the air deep enough to score the run."

I took a quick look at the 2007 splits so far this year. Here is the list of how many sac flies occurred with 0 strikes, 1 strike and 2 strikes on the hitter, and the plate appearances:

Strikes     SF        PA        Pct.
  0         353      28,753     1.2%
  1         301      34,957     0.8%
  2         272      56,673     0.4%

That's weird. The fewer strikes on the hitter, the better chance of a sac fly. Sac flies may be totally random, or hitters may be trying early in the count to hit a sac fly. Maybe as the number of strikes increase, hitters feel less ability to control the outcome. That is certainly true with respect to getting on base. Perhaps the same phenomenon occurs with sac flies.

Let's try 2006, in case 2007 is an anomaly:

Strikes     SF        PA        Pct.
  0         520      40,653     1.2%
  1         460      53,498     0.8%
  2         416      87,743     0.4%

Exactly the same. This tends to negate the thought that sac flies are random.

Out of curiosity, let's look at Chipper's career sac flies (split data is incomplete before 2000):

Strikes     SF        PA        Pct.
  0          36       2,612     1.4%
  1          24       2,141     1.1%
  2          13       2,954     0.4%

I'm going to have to think about this some more.

Weird Batting Line

You don't see this much: 1 for 1 with 5 RBI, no runs scored, and no walks. That's Chipper Jones' line from today's game. He was pulled in the bottom of the 5th since Atlanta had a 10-0 lead.

You can't get 5 RBI in one plate appearance. The best you can do is 4, with a grand slam, but Chipper didn't score any runs, which rules out the grand slam. He also didn't walk in any runs.

Here are his plate appearances:

1st: Sac fly w/RBI
2nd: Double w/3 RBI
4th: Sac fly w/RBI

That seems unusual.

I found four instances since 1957 of players who had 1 official AB and 5 or more RBI. (Actually, they all had exactly 1 AB and 5 RBI). They also all scored at least one run. In chronological order:

1. Bill Voss (Angels) had a grand slam and a sac fly in a 1970 game against the Royals. He walked twice and scored a run.

2. Mickey Tettleton (A's) had a three run HR and got the other 2 RBI on two walks in a 1986 game against the Yankees. He scored two runs.

3. Candy Maldonado (Indians) had the same line as Tettleton in a 1990 game against the Tigers, except Tettleton scored twice and Maldonado only once.

4. Keith Ginter (A's) had a three run HR and two sac flies in a 2005 game against the Giants. He walked once and scored one run.

I've never heard of Ginter, but he had 971 ABs in the majors, with Houston, Milwaukee and the A's. He was an average player, but average isn't so bad. He managed to amass 25 RBI in only 137 ABs in 2005. Not too shabby. 2005 was a horrible year for him, though. A 497 OPS, and he was out of the majors at age 29. He played for the Triple A team in Sacramento the next year and had an 800 OPS (again, not bad for a middle infielder). He is currently in Buffalo (Indians Triple A) where he is hitting 239/369/411 with 11 HR and 46 RBI. Maybe he'll get a callup if Barfield gets hurt.

Negative Game Scores

Since 1957, there have been only 108 games in which the starting pitcher has earned a negative game score*. Five have occurred this year: Simontacchi (-2), Shields (-3), Feierabend (-4), C.Lewis (-6) and Jon Garland (-11).

The first thing that strikes me here is that in 50 years, there are 108 such games (about 2 a year), but this year we've already got 5, and we are not even 2/3 of the way through the season. The second thing is how bad that Garland score is. Tied for 7th worst in the last 50 years.

But we're going to have another one. Jason Jennings gave up 11 earned runs in the first inning of today's game against the Padres. Although not "officially" computed by Baseballreference.com yet, I've got him with a game score of -11, tying Garland for the worst this year.

That's 6, and counting. We're on pace for 9 of these things, which would represent almost 9% of the below zero game scores since 1957.

*The Bill James Game Score is really a toy to determine how dominant a starting pitcher is on a game-by-game basis. Every pitcher starts the game with 50 points. You add 1 point for each out recorded, and 2 points for each inning (or fractional inning) completed after the 4th. You also add 1 point for each strikeout. Then, subtract 1 point for each walk, 2 points for each hit and unearned run allowed and 4 points for each earned run allowed.

Morgan Ensberg

With the Astros maintaining an illusion of contending for a playoff spot, and acquiring Ty Wigginton, they have designated Morgan Ensberg for assignment.

It reminds me how quickly fortunes change for professional athletes. Two years ago Ensberg was an All-Star, and finished 4th(!) in the MVP voting. Last year there was a dip in production, and most people think he had a bad year. But he was still a useful player. His .235 batting average in 2006 looks bad, but he was still managing nearly a .400 OBP even with that horrible average. The average third baseman in the National League in 2006 had an OPS of 826. Ensberg had an 859.

Less than a year later, and he has no major league job. The average third baseman this year has an OPS of 787, and Ensberg is at only 707, which isn't particularly good at any position.

His fielding has also declined. In 2005 and 2006, he was very good defensively, according to BP's FRAA and FRAR. This year, he's not only below average, he is below replacement level. The wheels have come off.

How? He got hurt last year. He started 2006 on fire, with 17 HR in April and May, with lots of walks. Then he hurt his shoulder. After that, he was basically useless at the plate.

BP 2007 says he is not a favorite of Phil Garner, and predicted he'd be traded. But, BP also thought he'd put up an 850 OPS with 20+ HR. I guess without those numbers, the Astros have no way to move him to another team. The Astros GM indicated that he didn't think Triple A made sense for Ensberg, so I suspect that if he isn't traded in 10 days, he's going to be out of baseball for awhile.

Can anyone use him? You wouldn't think so, if these are indicative of his ability, particularly since he is 31 years old. But check out Minnesota's production at third base. Punto/Rodriguez/Buscher have combined for a VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) of -27.2. That's horrible. It is very difficult to be that bad at a position. Almost anyone would be better.

Ensberg might not improve that, but I hardly see how they could do worse. I guess it depends on how expensive he is. Since homers fly out in Minnesota's ballpark, and Ensberg has a little pop, he might be useful. Minnesota's DHs are also below water in VORP, so he could fill in there too.

Selig and Bonds

Who cares?

I should stop there, but I won't. When I say "Who cares?" I'm referring to Selig's attendance at Giants' games, not Barry's quest. Leaving aside whether you like Barry or not, and whether you want him to pass Hammerin' Hank: (a) it's a big deal and (b) it's going to happen.

Does it matter in the slightest whether the commissioner is there? This isn't the Kennesaw Mountain Landis era. Selig is not a celebrity. I don't think the fans pay attention to ANYTHING he says. Do you really think of Selig as the guy who maintains the integrity of the game?

Maybe Selig, if he were there, would get a 20 second soundbite...and then, gone, lost among all the other soundbites and camera flashes.

Selig's presence, or absence, has absolutely no bearing on the event. It doesn't diminish what Bonds is doing. It doesn't tell us anything more about steroids (if you still care at this point).

I just hope (with all the energy I can muster) that Bonds does not hug someone on the opposing team when he does it, a la' McGwire and Sosa. That made me sick.

Devil Rays Incompetence

I've already written about the horrors of Navarro catching, and suggested Casanova as a replacement -- since he is already on the major league roster. Well, not any more. They sent him down. Yes, he with the .600 slugging percentage will labor in Triple AAA, while Navarro, whose on base percentage and slugging percentage combined is less than Casanova's SLG, remains with the team. Who comes up for Casanova? The previously mentioned, and unimpressive, Josh Paul.

Bad enough, right? Now how about trading away Ty Wigginton, one of the hottest trading deadline properties, for Dan Wheeler? I cannot believe the best the Rays could do for a guy on pace to get about 25 HR and 80 RBI, and who plays five different positions, was swapped for a setup man having a poor season (and who failed in his attempt to unseat a struggling Brad Lidge as the Houston closer).

When will this franchise start making the right moves?

Mistaken Platoon Splits

The Braves have decided to put Kelly Johnson at 2b when they face righties, and Yunel Escobar there when they face lefties.

Let's look at the splits. Johnson definitely ought to play against righties. A 913 OPS from your second baseman is nothing to sneeze at. Escobar is a poor 651 against righties. That portion of the platoon is working.

Now for the lefties. Escobar has a 790 OPS against lefties, which is pretty good. Kelly Johnson, however, has a 789 OPS against lefties -- nearly identical. Assuming that major leaguers hit better when they get lots of at bats, why sit Johnson against lefties when he is just as good as his platoon partner?

Could it be defense? Absolutely not. Escobar is very average defensively. Better than replacement, but -1 FRAA according to BP. Johnson, on the other hand, is superb. He is +16 FRAR and +9 FRAA. That 10 run difference on defense is worth a win.

Why, then, is Escobar playing against lefties? Because he has a very high batting average (.338) against them, and for some reason, that still blinds managers to what's best for the team.

Several books have been written about the Braves eschewing statistical analysis, including one by John Schuerholz ("Built to Win: Inside Stories and Leadership Strategies from Baseball's Winningest GM") and a horribly one-sided Braves-commissioned piece of crap ("Scout's Honor: The Bravest Way To Build A Winning Team" -- one of the worst sports books I've read*).

Perhaps they ought to get on the statistics bandwagon, because they are wasting one of the best second basemen in the game.

*You can read my review of the book at Amazon.com

My Casanova

The D-Rays started Casanova at catcher today, and he homered. Hint hint.

More on Mussina

Delving into baseballreference.com's game details, I looked for all games in Mussina's career in which he earned a Bill James game score of 35 or less. My goal was inning pitch counts. I figured it was unlikely Mussina threw more than 46 pitches in an inning during a game in which he had a pretty good game score. It was also a means of narrowing my search.

Counting last night's games, Mussina has had 71 games with a game score <= 35. I was a little surprised by that number. That's nearly 15% of his starts. In future, I'll have to compare that to another Hall of Fame or near Hall of Fame pitcher to see if that is an unusually high percentage.

If you are going by how many times his game score was <=35 in a season, his worst years were '96, '00 and '05. Those weren't very bad years overall...he finished in the Top 5 Cy Young voting in '96. In fact, prior to this year, Mussina has not had an awful season. At his worst, he is league average, but usually well above.

So far, 2007 is his worst season statistically. And this year he is likely to exceed his previous high of 7 games with a game score of 35 or less, since he already has 5 in 16 starts.

I looked at all 71 of those games, searching for innings in which his pitch count was 35 or higher. Counting last night, there were only 12 such games. (Note, five of the 71 games had no pitch count data, but the pitch count estimator did not indicate that he would have been anywhere near 35 pitches in those five games). Here are those games, in chronological order:

Date      Pitches   Inn      Opp
5-21-93     39    Top 3rd    MIL
6-18-95     38    Bot 1st    DET
4-21-99     35    Bot 4th    TBD
4-21-01     35    Top 4th    BOS
6-5-01      39    Top 2nd    BAL
7-31-02     36    Bot 2nd    TEX
8-6-02      38    Top 3rd    KCR
7-1-03      35    Bot 3rd    BAL
5-29-05     35    Top 1st    BOS
8-3-05      44    Bot 5th    CLE
9-24-06     35    Bot 4th    TBD
7-20-07     46    Top 3rd    TBD

So the top of the 3rd inning last night actually appears to be Mussina's longest inning by pitch count in his 17 year career, topping another tiring inning on August 3, 2005 by two pitches. Hats off to Joe Magrane.

Interestingly, in what was probably his worst outing ever on April 21, 1999 against the Devil Rays (mentioned in my earlier post, and earning his worst game score = 0!), he threw no more than 35 pitches in an inning. In fact, Mussina has five career games with a game score of 10 or lower and only two made the list for high pitch count innings with 35 and 36. High pitch count innings may not correlate well with low game scores, though I imagine they correlate better with low game scores than high ones.

Dioner Navarro

If you don't know who this is, he's the starting catcher for the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. Don't bother getting familiar with him. He's horrible.

He's hitting .179/.241/.250, for a robust .491 OPS. He's a starting catcher who at the plate is far below replacement level for a catcher. According to BP, he's 12 runs below replacement. Makes you wonder if he's that far below replacement, why don't they replace him? Surely someone in the Tampa Bay minors could manage a .491 OPS.

How does he keep his job? Well, according to BP he's pretty good defensively, at 12 runs above replacement. That gives him a WARP1 of -.1, or essentially replacement level when both hitting and defense are accounted for. But as discussed in the past, it is more widely accepted that fielding should be measured against the positional average, not against replacement. There, Dioner earns a 0. He's average defensively. If you recalculate his WARP1 based on FRAA, instead of FRAR, you get a -1.3 WARP through a bit more than half a season. (Look out Jerry Narron!)

Who can the Devil Rays promote? Let's start at the big club. Raul Casanova, Navarro's backup, has an OPS of .758. His slugging percentage is higher than Navarro's OPS. His defense is a little less robust, but that is made up for by his hitting.

Josh Paul, also with the big club, is not the answer with a .547 OPS. He's been DL'd twice this season, and most recently was put on the 60-day DL on June 3 (and he has not returned).

There are three players at AAA Durham: Hernandez, Johnson and Riggans. Hernandez is the best hitter, turning in an .820 OPS. You have to discount that for league quality. If AAA is 93% of MLB quality, that's still a .763. Johnson, the youngest, would be below replacement level at the plate, b/c he is struggling at AAA. Riggans has had a shot in the bigs (10 ABs, in which he did nothing and then went on the DL), and is only managing a .770 OPS at all levels. He probably isn't the answer.

Down at AA (Montgomery): they've got Jaso, Arhart and Spring (a good name for a catcher). The latter two aren't hitting and Arhart is on the 7-day DL, but Jaso has an .876 OPS, translatable to something like a .770 at MLB. He's outhitting SS prospect Reid Brignac and his OPS is second on the team to consensus Top 10 prospect Evan Longoria. He is slumping since the All-Star break, but I bet we see him in September.

That's at least three real possibilities: Casanova, a major league veteran; Hernandez, the Crash Davis of the system (but really only 28); and Jaso, the 23-year old future.

Mussina's Pitch Count

You hear a lot about pitch counts and whether (or how) they injure arms. Mike Mussina only threw 93 pitches against the Devil Rays tonight. That was in 4 2/3 innings, because Mussina was way off his game.

But most interesting is how many pitches he threw in top of the third. It was a bad inning for him...four runs scored. The damage could have been worse. He went to a full count on 5 hitters in that inning alone, and threw 46 pitches. 46 pitches in one inning?

Joe Magrane said he thought that was probably a record for Mussina. That's probably verifiable if you dig through RetroSheet data, or if you have a subscription to the Play Index at Baseball Reference.com.

Since I don't have time to pour through 15 years of Mussina games on Retrosheet, and have not yet subscribed to the PI at Baseball Reference, I'll speculate.

One common, and fairly accurate, way of estimating pitch counts is the following formula: BFP*3.3 + 1.5*SO + 2.2*(HBP+BB). Mussina faced 10 hitters in the 3rd inning, with one K and three walks. That's about 41 pitches. That means Mussina threw 4 more pitches than we would expect. Not a striking figure.

Has he ever had another inning where he faced 10 hitters and walked at least three? When viewed that way, it seems more likely. I don't know the answer, but Mussina gave up 10 runs in 3 2/3 innings in 1999, facing 24 batters in that short span. He threw 35 pitches in the bottom of the 4th of that game. Against who? The Devil Rays! That included a 9 pitch at bat by Wade Boggs.

That leads me to believe that his 46 pitch inning might not conclusively be the worst he's had in terms of pitch counts. I bet it is a close call.

By the way, Justin Upton hit a monster home run in that inning, off a horrible middle-in pitch from Mussina. In the post-game interview, Upton said it was the longest ball he had ever hit, and he turned it around so fast, he didn't even feel it hit the bat.

Writers with Bad Attitudes...or Just Poor Vocabulary

An AP sportswriter in San Francisco wrote this, about Pujols' complaints that LaRussa did not use him as a pinch hitter:

As if the St. Louis Cardinals needed any more embarrassment in a lackluster season that already featured the alcohol-related death of pitcher Josh Hancock in late April and skipper Tony La Russa's drunken driving arrest during spring training.

Explain to me what is "embarrassing" or "lackluster" to the Cardinals about Hancock's death. So it was alcohol related. Is the Cardinals' front office cowering in shame because of the way Hancock died. Or is it more likely they feel sad? Like maybe they could have done something to help him?

Ichiro (More)

I wonder what Ichiro thought when he was presented with a Chevy SUV hybrid for winning the All-Star MVP award. An American car for a Japanese player.

I bet he thought it was funny that he was being offered a car by a manufacturer that has been consistently substandard to virtually every Japanese auto maker for the last 25 years. Or, perhaps he thought it was interesting that Chevy was hyping hybrid technology, which the Japanese rolled out several years ago.

LaRussa's All-Star Strategy

The National League has men on first and second. LaRussa has to decide whether to let Orlando Hudson face K-Rod, or whether to pinch hit with Albert Pujols. Why would he stick with Hudson over the perennial MVP candidate?

Hudson hits from the left side. K-Rod is right handed, and lefties fare significantly better against him, although still not very well.

Also, Hudson has seen K-Rod before, when Hudson played with Toronto. He was 1-for-4 against K-Rod with two walks and a strikeout. He has an OPS of .750 against K-Rod in 6 plate appearances. Not awe-inspiring, but not a disaster.

Pujols, on the other hand, has faced K-Rod once, and struck out. So maybe sticking with Hudson made sense. I wouldn't, but it worked out. Hudson walked.

Bases are loaded, so now LaRussa's choice is Aaron Rowand, or the perennial MVP candidate. He sticks with Rowand, even though Rowand has the exact same batting history against K-Rod as Pujols, but has never even had an all-star quality season before. Meanwhile, Pujols is widely considered one of the best hitters in the game.

I thought these games were supposed to matter.

Bruce Froemming

Umpires are so overlooked, baseballreference.com does not have an umpire register -- or if it does, I can't find it.

Bruce Froemming is in his last year and was behind the plate in tonight's All-Star game. The Fox commentators mentioned him a couple of times, but why no feature story? Why no interview? He was umpiring games while Tim McCarver was still behind the plate.

Hmmm. Maybe that's why. :)

Froemming began umpiring games in 1971. Can you imagine how many bruises he's gotten over the years? He's seen a lot of great baseball. More than 5,000 regular season games, 32 Division Series games, 52 LCS games, 22 World Series games, and now, his third All-Star game. Out of those 106 post season games, he has been behind the plate only 16 times, but that's primarily because there are 6 umpires in post season games.

In his first All-Star game (1975), he was at third, standing next to Ron Cey and Graig Nettles. The National League won that one behind Reuss and Sutton. The NL scored three runs in the top of the ninth to take the game 6-3. Madlock singled with the bases loaded, scoring two, and Rose hit a sac fly. Hank Aaron made his 24th appearance, tying Stan Musial and Willie Mays, who was honored in tonight's game. Interesting tie-in.

He was behind the plate in the '86 All-Star game. Clemens and Teddy Higuera dominated the first 6 innings. You don't see the starters going 3 innings each anymore. The second basemen did the damage for the AL: Sweet Lou Whitaker and Frank White each homered.

He was umpiring at second base for Gibson's famous World Series home run in 1988. He was at first for Johnny Bench's two homers in game 4 of the 1976 World Series. There are other such moments.

As for no-hitters, he was umpiring at first for the Dennis "El Presidente" Martinez and Kevin Gross games, second for the Bud Smith (who?), Burt Hooton and Darryl Kile games, third for the Phil Niekro and Bob Forsch games, and was behind the plate for Milt Pappas, Ed Halicki, Jose Jimenez (who?) and Nolan Ryan #5.

(Data compiled from Retrosheet)

Ichiro

Which is more amazing?

(a) An inside the park home run in the All-Star game

(b) Ichiro hitting the inside the park home run and scoring standing up

(c) Ichiro loafing out of the batter's box

(d) All three combined.

The answer is (d). As rare as inside the park home runs are, I imagine it is even more rare for the hitter to score standing up. Ichiro apparently thought he hit it out of the park, though, because his first few steps were a home run trot. And he still scored standing up!

By the way, the lifetime leader in inside-the-park home runs belongs to Jesse Burkett, with a whopping 56. Of course, he played at the turn of the century. Next on the list are Sam Crawford, Ty Cobb, Tommy Leach, Honus Wagner, Tris Speaker, Jake Beckley, Rogers Hornsby, Jake Daubert and Edd Roush. It says something that Hornsby is the most recent player on the list, and he retired 70 years ago.

UPDATE: In the post game sort-of-interview, Ichiro said he thought he hit the ball out of the park.

Hargrove and Narron

Mike Hargrove

Hargrove walks out on the team when it is finally turning things around. On the one hand I have some sympathy, because something weird is obviously going on with Hargrove personally (though he said it was nothing big). On the other hand, this team -- which is not tremendously talented -- is finally playing good baseball, and he drops out in the middle of the season.

Even Jose Guillen liked him.

Jerry Narron

Jerry Narron gets fired by the Reds. How did he get that job anyway? I guess if you spend enough time as a backup catcher, you've got a shot at managing bad ballclubs.

He was just a placeholder. There was nothing notable about his tenure, except that he was set up to be the scapegoat for bad front office decisions the last couple of years.

I remember a Narron baseball card from when I was a kid. Back when Topps had a monopoly. He had a pitiful pose. A kind of half-assed batting stance. Hmmmm.

Hargrove vs. Narron

I don't think Baseball Reference.com should first show Hargrove's managerial stats when you search for his name, before showing his playing stats. He was a better player than a manager. Career OPS+ of 121 isn't half bad, with two years in the 140s. He could also pick it at first.

I have no advice for Baseball Reference.com about whether Narron's managerial or playing record should appear first when you search for him. Theoretically, the answer is neither, but that's not practical.

Narron's best OPS+ was a 74 (63 for his career). He only had as many as 200 AB in one season. A miserable hitter. He accumulated a WARP3 of 0.9. That's right: 0.9 is his career total! Five of his 8 seasons were negative WARP3.

Did he make up for it with defense behind the plate? Defense alone would have given him about 2 WARP, so his hitting wiped out 1.1 of that. But that's if you use his fielding above replacement. Most people agree that fielding ought to be judged against average, and there he would have a -2.7 WARP. So if you use that figure, his career would be about 3.6 wins below replacement. The catching position must have been real thin in the early 80s.

ESPN Sunday Night Baseball: MIN @DET

Hawking for Ernie Harwell

I have no problem with John Miller and Joe Morgan interviewing Ernie Harwell during the game. I'm not particularly impressed with Harwell, but he's in the broadcaster's wing of the Hall of Fame -- which is pretty much automatic if you stay on the air long enough. Still, he's been around baseball. He has stories to tell.

Sadly, Harwell wasn't there to talk about his broadcasting career. Nor was he there to call the game for a couple of innings. He was there to hawk his 4-CD set of game calls and interviews. John Miller became the spokesmodel for Harwell when he turned to the camera, positioned the CD set carefully in front of the camera, and told us where we could order it on the Web. He embellished it with a story that he bought the CD set for himself last November -- which I do not believe.

That was a little irritating. But then the next inning, they did it again. There were three separate mentions of Harwell's web site so we could buy the audio set. Whatever happened to doing interviews for free?

Peter Gammons

Peter Gammons, arguably the most knowledgable baseball reporter in the last 30 years, worked the dugout during the telecast. He was used twice. First, he interviewed Johan Santana, which is a perfectly valid use of Gammons. It wasn't particularly insightful, but Gammons did not have much time.

The second, and last use of Gammons, was in connection with another ESPN product tie-in. John Miller, out of the blue, in the middle of the telecast, starts talking about the iPhone. He engages Joe Morgan in a conversation about the iPhone. Then it gets worse. Down to the dugout for a report from Peter Gammons...whose baseball intelligence is wasted as he tells us that Justin Verlander was able to pick up an iPhone when everyone else had trouble finding one. Why? Gammons says Verlander is smarter than everyone else because he went to the Apple store. What's so brilliant about that?

Moreover, what the hell does it have to do with baseball, and why is the best baseball reporter of my lifetime talking about the iPhone? Gammons was on the air for about 2 minutes for the whole game, and about 1/2 of that was pushing the iPhone.

No wonder I've been watching MLB TV exclusively.

Deacon White

Deacon White (1898)	3b
342/382/435

---

Sim Score                 A
HoF Standard              A
Grey Ink                  B
Keltner                   A
HoF Monitor               A
Pitcher LWTS             n/a
Relative RC/27            B
Win Shares                A
WS-Defense                C
WARP1                     A
Fibonacci                n/a
Score                  94(184)

Paul Hines

Paul Hines (1898)	cf
336/375/456

---

Sim Score                 A
HoF Standard              A
Grey Ink                  A
Keltner                   A
HoF Monitor               A
Pitcher LWTS             n/a
Relative RC/27            C
Win Shares                A
WS-Defense                B
WARP1                     A
Fibonacci                n/a
Score                  97(189)

George Wright

George Wright (1898)	ss
335/352/446

---

Sim Score                 B
HoF Standard              A
Grey Ink                  B
Keltner                   A
HoF Monitor               A
Pitcher LWTS             n/a
Relative RC/27            B
Win Shares                A
WS-Defense                B
WARP1                     A
Fibonacci                n/a
Score                  97(188)

Ross Barnes

Ross Barnes (1898)	2b
393/424/512

---

Sim Score                 B
HoF Standard              A
Grey Ink                  A
Keltner                   A
HoF Monitor               A
Pitcher LWTS             n/a
Relative RC/27            A
Win Shares                A
WS-Defense                A
WARP1                     A
Fibonacci                n/a
Score                 105(203)

PHoM-Open Method Inductees

#	Electee	Pos
1.	Ross Barnes	2b
2.	Paul Hines	cf
3.	George Wright	ss
4.	Deacon White	3b
5.	Al Spalding	sp
6.	Ezra Sutton	3b
7.	George Gore	cf
8.	Hardy Richardson	2b/of
9.	Charley Radbourn	sp
10.	Charley Jones	rf
11.	Lip Pike	cf
12.	Cal McVey	c/1b

PHoM-Quota Method Inductees

#	Electee	Pos
1.	Ross Barnes	2b
2.	Paul Hines	cf
3.	George Wright	ss
4.	Deacon White	3b

1898 Election Results

	PHoM Quota Method
#	Electee	Pos
1.	Ross Barnes	2b
2.	Paul Hines	cf
3.	George Wright	ss
4.	Deacon White	3b

	PHoM Open Method
#	Electee	Pos
1.	Ross Barnes	2b
2.	Paul Hines	cf
3.	George Wright	ss
4.	Deacon White	3b
5.	Al Spalding	sp
6.	Ezra Sutton	3b
7.	George Gore	cf
8.	Hardy Richardson	2b/of
9.	Charley Radbourn	sp
10.	Charley Jones	rf
11.	Lip Pike	cf
12.	Cal McVey	c/1b

Alternative Hall of Fame -- Methods (Pitcher LWTS)

In "The Hidden Game of Baseball," Pete Palmer and John Thorn developed a linear weights system for valuing players. Linear Weights assigns a weight to each stat, based on that stat's likelihood of producing runs. Although calculated differently, it works similarly to Bill James' Runs Created.

Runs Created, however, did not address pitchers. Linear Weights did. The oversimplified LWTS for pitchers is to divide League ERA by the pitcher's ERA and multiply it times innings pitched. The average pitcher scores 0, since if the pitcher had a league average ERA you would be multiplying 0 times the innings pitched. Negative scores occur if the pitcher's ERA exceeded the league ERA. There's a park adjustment in there too.

I calculate linear weights for each pitching season. I calculated the career LWTS totals for all pitchers in the Hall of Fame and developed a grade scale.

I also wanted to take into account the effect of defense behind the pitcher. Baseball Prospectus includes a pitcher's DERA, which is what the pitcher's ERA would be if he had an average defense behind him. After doing the initial raw LWTS career grade above, I separately grade the pitcher on what I call his DERA LWTS. I the 3-year peak, 5-year consecutive peak, 7-year peak, LWTS per 100 innings pitched, and career linear weights, much like I do for Win Shares and WARP1. I did the same LWTS calculations for all Hall of Fame pitchers to develop a scale for measuring whether a pitcher fits within the Hall based on these DERA LWTS scores. I then average the LWTS career grade with the DERA LWTS grade.

I did a separate calculation for Hall of Fame (or near Hall of Fame relievers), because their LWTS and DERA LWTS totals are lower than starters. Therefore, relievers get a different grade scale.

This test gets normal weight in a pitcher's GPA.

Alternative Hall of Fame -- Methods (Fibonacci Wins)

Bill James' Fibonacci Win Points are a pitcher's wins, times his winning percentage, plus his games over .500. He posited that win point are a better way of looking at won-lost records than simply wins, because they do a better job of separating the wheat from the chaff. Pitchers with win percentages that exceed Fibonnaci's number (0.618) get a boost to their win totals.

I set up a grade scale, based roughly on Bill James' findings of Hall of Fame pitchers' Fibonacci scores. For instance, he found 86% of those with 207 or more Fibonacci win points were in the Hall of Fame.

I am not 100% convinced this method tells us much, but I need a separate test for pitchers. So it gets 1/2 the normal weight in the GPA.

Alternative Hall of Fame -- Methods (Relative RC/27)

This one is straightforward. After normalizing the stats, I measure the player's career runs created per 27 outs to the weighted league average runs created per 27 outs for the seasons he played, to develop a relative number.

For each position player in the actual Hall of Fame, I examined their relative quotient and developed a range for the grading system. For instance, catchers get a "C" if the quotient is between 1.06 and 1.16, which means they hit 6-16% better than the league. But a right fielder who gets a 1.06 to 1.16 would score an "F".

The Relative RC/27 score gets normal weight in the GPA.

Alternative Hall of Fame -- Methods (Win Shares Defense)

See the Win Shares post for more about Win Shares and the defensive adjustments I make through 1909.

For each position played, I examined the rate of defensive Win Shares per 1,000 innings achieved by actual Hall of Famers (categorized by position) and developed a scale to apply to the players under evaluation. Based on that, I give the player a grade for his defense.

Because the rest of the tests for position players are focused primarily on hitting, my Win Shares Defense grade gets the normal weight in the GPA.

Alternative Hall of Fame -- Methods (WARP1)

This one is based on the system used at Baseball Prospectus. I adjust WARP for season-length, as described in the normalization post.

WARP stands for Wins Above Replacement Player, and you can read more at Baseball Prospectus. They have three versions of WARP: 1, 2 and 3. WARP1 is the basic measure. WARP2 "timelines" the WARP1 score, to account for the higher talent levels in modern baseball. WARP3 then adjusts WARP2 for season-length.

I do not timeline. I measure players in the context in which they played, not the modern context. That's why I use WARP1, and then independently apply a season-length adjustment. In a way, it is like WARP3, but skips WARP2.

I give an individual grade for each of the following: 3-year peak; 5-year consecutive peak; 7-year peak; WARP1 per 162 games (or WARP1 per 100 IP for pitchers); and career WARP1. My goal is to blend peak measures with career totals. So in addition to giving grades in those areas, I also have a combo formula that gets a grade. The combo formula consists of taking the square root of the product of WARP1 per 162 games (or WARP1 per 100 IP) times career WARP1.

For each position played, and each of those WARP1 categories, I examined the numbers achieved in those categories by actual Hall of Famers (categorized by position) and developed a scale to apply to the players under evaluation. After applying the grades in those categories, I end up with a WARP1 GPA, which determines the grade that goes into the player's overall GPA.

My WARP1 grade gets 1.5 times the normal weight in the GPA, because it is one of the preeminent uber-systems. Unlike Win Shares, I do not give a separate grade for WARP1 defense. Maybe someday I will.

Alternative Hall of Fame -- Methods (Win Shares)

This one is obviously based on Bill James' Win Shares system. I adjust the Win Shares for season-length, as described in the normalization post.

I give an individual grade for each of the following: 3-year peak; 5-year consecutive peak; 7-year peak; WS per 162 games (or WS per 100 IP, for pitchers); and career WS. My goal is to blend peak measures with career totals. So in addition to giving grades in those areas, I also have a combo formula that gets a grade. The combo formula consists of taking the square root of the product of WS per 162 games (or WS per 100 IP) times career WS.

For each position played, and each of those WS categories, I examined the numbers achieved in those categories by actual Hall of Famers (categorized by position) and developed a scale to apply to the players under evaluation. After applying the grades in those categories, I end up with a Win Shares GPA, which determines the grade that goes into the player's overall GPA.

I made some special adjustments up through 1909. From 1871-1909 the ball was put in play a lot more than today, because pitchers essentially started the action. Win Shares assumes that defense is 48% of the game. Defense is split into pitching and fielding, but pitching gets twice as much weight as fieldign. That is not appropriate for the earliest years in baseball.

In my system, from 1871-1880, I recalibrate Win Shares to treat pitching and fielding as 50-50 on the defensive side. That means a reduction in Win Shares for pitchers, and increases in Win Shares for fielders (shared with teammates). From 1881-1886, I recalibrate Win Shares to treat pitching and fielding as 57-43 on the defensive side. From 1887-1893, I recalibrate Win Shares to treat pitching and fielding as 60-40 on the defensive side. From 1894-1909, I recalibrate Win Shares to treat pitching and fielding as 63-37 on the defensive side. Beginning in 1910, I leave the split "as is" at 67.5-32.5.

My Win Shares grade gets 1.5 times the normal weight in the GPA, because it is one of the preeminent uber-systems.

Alternative Hall of Fame -- Methods (Keltner Test)

In "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame" Bill James explained the "Keltner List," named after former Cleveland third baseman Ken Keltner: "I drew up a lits of questios that might be used to evaluate where a player stands as a potential Hall of Famer...but, because it involves a series of subjective questions, it doesn't necessarily work as a formal methodology."

There are 15 questions, and they require yes/no responses. I formalize the methodology for this project, by giving some of the questions greater weight, and some lesser weight. For instance "Do most players with comparable stats get elected" is given 1/2 the weight, because in my system Sim Scores get 1/2 the normal weight in the GPA. So a "yes" to that question earnst he player 0.5 points.

A question that gets 1.5 times the weight is "Was he arguably the best player in the league at his position?" because I think this is a very important part of evaluating Hall of Famers.

I then developed a scale that gives an A to anyone with 8 points or more, a B for 6-7 points, a C for 4-5 points and a D for 2-3 points.

It is subjective, but because it is arguably the real test of whether someone should be in the Hall, the Keltner Test gets the normal weight in the GPA.

Alternative Hall of Fame -- Methods (HoF Monitor)

Bill James created the Hall of Fame Monitor test in his "Baseball Abstract" to address an issue not addressed by the Hall of Fame Standards test. Whereas the Standards measured career performances, the Monitor evaluates how many individual seasons a player hit a certain benchmark, like a .300 batting average, 25 wins, or winning an MVP award. It does so for purposes of predicting whether a player will make the Hall of Fame based on what seems to impress the voters. For instance, James included number of seasons of 200 hits because that seems to impress the voters, even though it is essentially meaningless.

The Standards is a 100 point system with an average Hall of Famer getting 50. The Hall of Fame Monitor has no limit, but most players who hit 100 are likely Hall of Famers. A player's Hall of Fame Monitor score is reported on Baseball Reference.com.

I took the system as it is, with a few modifications. First, all of the numbers I plug into the Hall of Fame Monitor are normalized. And second, instead of measuring how many All-Star games a player actually played in, I evaluate how many times the player was worthy of being an All-Star by reference to his Win Shares and WARP1 scores (adjusted for season-length). Win Shares seasons of 25 or better qualify. WARP1 scores of 8.0 or better qualify. This makes up for the pre-All Star period, where players would be at a disadvantage in the system and for the fact that some players continue to be elected to the All-Star game well after they should be.

The last thing I did was develop a grade scale for each position. Like the Hall of Fame Standards, I evaluated the Hall of Fame Monitor scores for current Hall of Famers to develop the grade range. A player who gets an "F" might be a very good player -- he is not a failure relative to all baseball players -- but the "F" represents how he compares to solid Hall of Famers.

The Hall of Fame Monitor test gets normal weight in the GPA.

Alternative Hall of Fame -- Methods (Grey Ink)

Bill James created the Black Ink test in "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame." The test awarded points for players who were first in key statistical categories.

Hitters received 4 points for leading the league in batting average, RBI or home runs; 3 points for leading the league in runs, hits or slugging percentage; 2 points for leading the league in doubles, walks or stolen bases; and 1 point for leading the league in games, at bats and triples.

Pitchers received 4 points for leading the league in wins, ERA or strikeouts; 3 points for leading the league in innings, win pct or saves; 2 points for leading the league in complete games, fewest walks per 9 innings or fewest hits per nine innings; and one point for leading the leauge in games, starts or shutouts.

At some point, sabermetricians developed grey ink, which awarded the same points, but based it on a top ten finish, rather than leading the league. A player's career black ink and grey ink appears as part of Baseball Reference.com.

I went with the grey ink test, but faced three problems. First, because James was trying to predict who would be in the Hall of Fame, not who should be in the Hall of Fame, he used categories the Hall of Fame considered important. In some cases, the stat categories do not do a good job representing player quality. I changed the categories in some cases, although not in a purely sabermetric way.

For hitters, the four point categories and two point categories are the same. In the three point category, I replaced hits with on-base percentage. In the one point category, I replaced games with hits, and at-bats with Power/Speed number, another Bill James "toy" for which you can see the leaders on Baseball Reference.com. I made no category changes to the pitchers.

The second problem was that the numbers were not park-adjusted when developing league leaderboards. I adapted my database to this problem, using the park factors on Baseball Reference.com. I can now generate park-adjusted leaderboards for every category except stolen bases, power/speed number, saves, complete games, games pitched, starts and shutouts.

The third problem was figuring out how to assign grades. Again, those on the left end of the spectrum get higher grades with lower grey ink scores. I informally calculated the grey ink for Hall of Famers and developed ranges for my grading system. There's a separate scale for each position.

Before my Grey Ink test was park adjusted, it got 1/2 the normal weight in the GPA. Now that it is park-adjusted, it gets the normal weight in the GPA. This is the test that takes the longest for me to calculate, because I have to generate leaderboards for every year after making the park-adjustments.

Alternative Hall of Fame -- Methods (HoF Standards)

In "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame," Bill James created the "Hall of Fame Standards." The method was not designed to say who should be in the Hall of Fame in any absolute sense, but rather to determine who is likely to be elected to the Hall of Fame based on the standards that the Hall of Fame seems to apply -- assuming there are any. The idea is that if a player's Hall of Fame Standards score is in the range of the Hall of Fame Standards scores of players actually elected, he too is likely to be elected.

The system was designed so that the average Hall of Famer scored a 50. For hitters James evaluated hits, batting average, runs, RBI, slugging percentage, on-base percentage, home runs, extra base hits, stolen basis and walks, plus a defensive adjustment. For pitchers James evaluated wins, win pct., games, ERA, strikeouts, walks per nine innings, hits per nine innings, innings pitched, complete games and shutouts. All this was done with career numbers. You can get a player's Hall of Fame Standards score on Baseball Reference.com.

I took the system "as is," with the following changes.

(1) The numbers I use are not actual totals, but the normalized totals I develop for each player. That means they are adjusted for run scoring environment, park factors and season-length. A few are not adjusted that way. Games played, complete games and shutouts are not adjusted at all. Pitcher strikeouts, BB/9 and H/9 are park-adjusted, but not adjusted for run scoring environment or season-length.

(2) Because a typical HoF Standards score differs among positions played, the HoF Standards totals required to get a particular grade are lower for players on the left end of the defensive spectrum (and relief pitchers) than players on the right end of the spectrum (and starting pitchers). For instance, it takes 56 points to get an "A" if you are a right fielder, but only 50 to get an "A" if you are a shortstop (and the shortstop also gets some positional points under the Bill James system).

The ranges I use for each position are based on a study I did of the HoF Standards scores of players in the Hall of Fame, categorized by position played.

The Hall of Fame Standards test gets a normal weight in the GPA.

Alternative Hall of Fame -- Methods (Normalization)

General

Most of the measures I use to determine the PHoM are centered around normalizing a player's stats, so I can compare them across different eras, and ballparks. The basic method I use is what Bill James called the "Willie Davis" method in his book "Win Shares."

If you are reading this blog, you probably know what park-adjustments are. I use the park adjustment factors found on Baseball Reference.com, which are derived from Pete Palmer's method in "Total Baseball.

Hitters

For hitter normalization, I took a slightly different approach to account for different run scoring environments. First, I calculated the value of an out under Palmer's linear weights method, for each year and each league in baseball history. The values range from a low of .185 in the 1875 National Association, to a high of .335 in the 1894 National League. I tried to find a relatively modern year in which both the NL and AL had the same out figure. The closest year was 1974, where the NL had a .271 and the AL had a .273. I wanted a more round number, so my baseline for the Willie Davis method is an out value of .270.

I apply this to runs created, and then back into the raw stats. In short, I normalize the hitting stats by: (1) park-adjusting runs created, (2) calibrating the actual season's out value to the baseline value of .270 and applying that to runs created and (3) using the calibrated runs created figure to proportionally adjust the actual raw stats. The goal is to leave at-bats roughly the same as in the actual season, but normalize the other stats.

There's another problem, and that has to do with season-length. Comparing the stats of someone who played 80 games in an 81 game major league season to someone who played 150 games in a 162 game major league season has some obvious disadvantages for the short-season player. Rather than just multiply the first player's stats by two, I use an exponential method to calibrate the seasons to a 162 game schedule. I divide 162 by the average number of games that a team played in the subject season, and raise it to the 2/3 power to get an adjustment figure. I use that figure to make season-length adjustments.

Pitchers

What about pitchers? For pitchers I normalize their linear weights by comparing the league average ERA for the year to a baseline ERA of 3.75. That helps with normalizing the ERA, but it does nothing for Wins.

Here's the method for Wins. First, I calculate the pythagorean win pct based on the normalized ERA, using an exponent of 1.83. I compare the number of wins in this method, to the number of pythagorean wins a player would have with his un-normalized ERA. I then add (or subtract) the difference in pythagorean wins to the actual wins to get a new wins figure. Thus, I'm not using normalized pythagorean wins as the number of wins; I'm using actual wins, plus the difference in pythagorean wins between normalized ERA and actual ERA. I also add to those wins 1/2 of the Wins Above Team the pitcher achieved.

Finally, for pitchers, there is a separate kind of season-length disparity that is not based on the number of games a team plays. With current five man rotations, the opportunities for wins are much less than when a team had two starters. It is difficult to compare Greg Maddux to Mickey Welch when it comes to wins. So I developed a separate season-length adjustment for pitchers.

This adjustment is based on the average number of starts earned by starters with at least 24 starts during a season. The baseline for this is right around 1974-1975, where the average "regular" starter started 34 games. Pitchers in early baseball who started a lot more games have their wins ratched down. For instance, in the 1873 National Association, the average regular starter started 47 games. Normalizing that to 34 games means I multiply the pitcher's starts by .723, in both the wins and losses columns. By contrast, in the 2005 American League, teh average regular starter started 31 games, so those pitchers get a boost to their starts by 1.0968.

League Quality

One last normalization point. Some leagues are weaker than others, and that must be accounted for. After much discussion, I have determined there is no way to accurately measure weakness. At best we can make well-reasoned guesses. I have decided to ignore small indications of weakness, where one league is less than 5% weaker than another. Also, I ignore era-related weaknesses. I do not "timeline" -- that is, adjust for the fact that every player in major league baseball today is probably a better athlete than 95% of the players in 1900. I treat all eras equally. Accordingly, players during WWII are not dinged for the lower quality competition. They played against the best players available.

Still, there are some obvious instances of league weaknesses, primarily for the National Association, American Association, Federal League, and Union Association. I ignore any subtle weaknesses, like the American League weaknesses in the first few years of its creation relative to the National League. With no real way to peg a number, and because there were quality players in the league, such an adjustment would be as likely to distort as to elucidate.

Here are my league quality adjustment factors.

Union Association 0.65
Federal League 0.76 (both years)
American Association 0.78 (1882), 0.84 (1883), 0.89 (1884), 0.90 (1885 & 1889), 0.95 (1886-1888), 0.79 (1890), 0.76 (1891).
National Association: 0.90 (1871), 0.97 (1874), 0.72 (1875)

Alternative Hall of Fame -- Methods (Sim Score)

The first item on my grade sheet is for Similarity Score. This is a Bill James creation from his book "Whatever happened to the Hall of Fame." It takes two players' career stats in a few categories, compares the differences, and assigns a value to those differences.

The stat categories for hitters are: games, at bats, runs, hits, doubles, triples, home runs, RBI, walks, strikeouts, stolen basis, batting average and slugging percentage. You start with 1,000 points, and then subtract based on the differences between two players. For example, for each .001 difference between two players' batting averages, you subtract 1 point. For each difference of 4 triples, you subtract one point, and so on. There's also a positional adjustment, on the theory that shortstops (for example) are a lot different than DHs, but not that much different than second basemen.

The method is the same for pitchers, and the categories are: wins, losses, win percentage, ERA, games, starts, complete games, innings pitched, hits allowed, strikeouts, walks, shutouts and saves. There's an adjustment based on which hand they throw with, and whether they are starters or relievers.

The idea is that if the player being evaluated has a high similarity score with other players who are worthy of induction, then the player being evaluated may be worthy of induction. You can find Sim Scores for every player on Baseball Reference.com. James invented it only as a fun little test.

From an evaluation standpoint, it has three principal flaws, in my opinion. First, the career stats are not park-adjusted or era-adjusted. I have a partial remedy that, described below. Second, it uses only career stats, so very good players with long careers may be similar to awesome players with shorter careers. Third, it ignores defense, although can take into account a position value. My remedy for the second and third flaws is to give Sim Scores grades only 1/2 the weight of a normal measure.

My remedy for the first flaw is more complex. I take the career numbers after the "normalization" process described in another post on this blog, and enter them into the spreadsheet that does the Sim Score calculations. Accordingly, a player's Sim Scores are based on park-adjusted normalized career stats.

How does this produce a "grade"? I find the 10 most similar players to the one being evaluated. For each one that is HoF-quality, I assign 4 points to those with a score of 950 or better (James called this ("unusually similar"); 3 points if the score is 900 or better ("truly similar"); 2 points if the score is 850 or better ("essentially similar"); and 1 point if the score is 800 or better ("somewhat similar"). I also give 3 points if there are no unusually similar players. For instance, no one is truly similar to Babe Ruth, but he should not get a lower grade for being better than everyone else.

If a similar player is no HoF-quality, there are no points given. How do I determine HoF-quality players? It is subjective. I count everyone in the HoF, even if I think their election was a mistake. I count everyone in the Hall of Merit, even if I think their election was a mistake. And I count everyone I've put in my PHoM, in which I make no mistakes. :)

The most points anyone could get would be 40. That's 10 unusually similar HoF-quality players. No one has 40 points. I give an A for 16 points or better, a B for 12 points or better, a C for 8 points or better and a D for 4 points or better. Everything else is an F.

One more thing: I do not use the positional adjustment, except for those players on the left end of the defensive spectrum: catchers, shortstops, second basemen and third basemen.

As stated earlier, the Sim Score grade gets 1/2 the normal weight in the GPA.

Alternative Hall of Fame -- Methods (Overview)

Although the details of my system have changed several times -- constantly being tweaked -- the system has always revolved around a "report card" for the players. The Report Card includes the following categories, and the categories are weighted as indicated:

Similarity Score x 0.5
Hall of Fame Standards x 1.0
Grey Ink Test x 1.0
Keltner List x 1.0
Hall of Fame Monitor x 1.0
Win Shares x 1.5
WARP1 x 1.5

For position players, I add:

Runs Created relative to League Average Runs Created x 1.0
Defensive Win Shares x 1.0

For pitchers, I add:

Pitching Linear Weights x 1.0
Fibonacci Win Points x 0.5

In each category, a player gets a grade, based on an A to F scale. An A is worth 4 points, a B is worth 3 points, and so on. Those grade points are weighted, as described above, and produce a GPA. I then compare the player's GPA to a perfect score (a 4.0).

I calculate two GPAs. The first, base score is the player's GPA as a percentage of a perfect score, dropping the lowest grade. That number generally will be between 0 and 100, although because of the weighting system players can score as high as 106.

The second score is the tiebreaker. It is the player's GPA as a percentage of a perfect score, with all the grades included, and then added to the base score. Because I will only be posting for those players who make good enough grades, the second number will not be lower than 100 and may be as high as 206.

As mentioned in the earlier posts, I'll be posting two lists: one based on the Hall of Merit quota system, which limits the number of electees each year (the PHoM-Quota list); and another based on which players meet 75% of the standards (the PHoM-Open list). For this second list, any player whose base score is 75 or higher will make my PHoM-Open list.

For each of the categories on the grade sheet, I will add a separate post explaining how I calculate the grades.

Alternative Hall of Fame (Repost)

Since its inception (more than 2 years ago), I have been participating in a project for an alternative baseball Hall of Fame, known as the Hall of Merit. A collection of baseball sabermetricians (about 50 of us) hold an election every two weeks, representing another year in baseball history. It is hosted on the Baseball Think Factory site. The first election was for players retiring 1892 and before. Then every two weeks we have an election for the players becoming eligible for the next year. Consideration is given to players who spent considerable time in other leagues. The most obvious example is the Negro Leagues, but there were also a number of players who played professionally before what we consider the major leagues (the National Association) became official in 1871.

I thought it might be interesting to post here, from time to time, my proposed selections for the Hall of Merit, because although I get a vote, it is only one of 50. Often the players I believe should be elected are not (although many times they are elected eventually). That's true for all of the voters, of course. Most of us keep track of our Personal Hall of Merit, or PHoM for short.

One word about the Hall of Merit system. There are a specified number of players elected each year. In the first election, since we were covering 21 years of baseball, there were 4 electees. In most years there are 2, but in some years there are 1 and when we get to the modern years it will be 3. The numbers were determined by the baseball "population" for the given years, and the final number elected should approximate that of the actual Hall of Fame.

When I post my PHoM selections here, I will post two lists. One will use the quota system of the HoM (call it PHoM-Quota Method) and the other will list those who meet 75% of my standards for induction (call it the PHoM-Open Method). Almost everyone on the first list will be on the second, but not necessarily vice versa. For that reason, I will give brief descriptions of the elected players only for the Quota Method, along with a link to their baseball record.

The PHoM posts will happen periodically. I also will post a guide to my methods.