150 replies to this topic

[joe dokes]

Ok, let's leave "makeup" out of it. Let's just talk about "quality". If we need to see a ballplayer in action to really understand the total package...that there are things that the stats simply do not show, then why is it not important that we see a player in action when talking about the HOF? Why is it important in every day baseball life, determining just how good Jeff Bagwell and Rafael Palmeiro are, but not important when talking about Jeff Bagwell and Rafael Palmeiro historically?

Because generally speaking, scouting is designed to aid in the prediction of what a player *will* do. A HOF analysis is aimed at what he *did* do. The former must be a blend of statistical and scouting info. The latter can be determined almost entirely on the basis of results, which, in baseball, are tabulated rather meticulously.

EDIT: and even the most welll travelled observer will only see a small portion -- and likely an insignificant one -- of a major leaguer's career. Jack Morris (for example) started 525 games or so. Has anyone alive witnessed -- in person or even on tv -- more than 100 of them? or 200? Is such an "observation" even valid t make a HOF judgment, when his actual results are recorded so meticulously?

Edited by joe dokes, 06 January 2011 - 10:33 AM.

[ivanvamp]

Because generally speaking, scouting is designed to aid in the prediction of what a player *will* do. A HOF analysis is aimed at what he *did* do. The former must be a blend of statistical and scouting info. The latter can be determined almost entirely on the basis of results, which, in baseball, are tabulated rather meticulously.

That's a fair statement. But then you take the position (I offered two earlier) that ultimately, everything you need to know about a player is found in the stat sheet. Thus, you don't need to actually see a player to know how good or bad he is (or was).

[joe dokes]

That's a fair statement. But then you take the position (I offered two earlier) that ultimately, everything you need to know about a player is found in the stat sheet. Thus, you don't need to actually see a player to know how good or bad he is (or was).

You can't conflate "is" and "was" like that. "Is" and "was" are two different analyses because they address different concerns. For HOF purposes, we're talking "was,", and yes, I think that there is very little outside the tabulated results that one needs to "see" to make that determination. Put another way, I'd place much more stock in the results than the observations. Of the more than 400 voters that voted for Larkin, how many actually saw him play?

For "is", we want to know things in addition to performance, like work habits, team-matery, jumps on balls, and other scout-y things that, IMO, have very little to do with the HOF analysis, other than to the extent that they made the player produce better, as reflected in the results.

[mabrowndog]

Ivan, I'm concerned that you might think some here are drawing a black and white distinction between "only stats" and "watching them play". Both are important, but when it comes to HOF evaluation the weighting of each becomes critical.

Obviously there are things we see that are going to weigh more heavily when we rate how good ballplayers are. If we take 10 pedestrian defensive plays by Marco Scutaro where he threw out the batter at first base, and compare them to 10 incredible plays made by a leaping/diving/reaching Ozzie Smith that had the same result, there's no statistical difference. 10 balls in play, 10 fielding chances, 10 assists, 10 outs. But we'll both walk away marveling at the brilliance of Ozzie, as well we should, while merely shrugging at what Scutaro did. And there's nothing wrong with that if we're assessing those plays in a vacuum.

But when we allow a few select visual memories to blanket an entire career, there's a danger in that. Writers, even the most objective and even-handed of them, have a built-in bias. And it's not because of perceptions, it's because of their assignments. They're either beat writers spending the lion's share of their time following one team over a certain period of years, or columnists for a certain paper in a certain city in a certain time zone who don't even travel to cover a team. Either way, they're not watching all of the games all of the time. If they're on the east coast, they're in bed when the Angels, Padres, Dodgers, A's, Mariners and Giants are playing at home. None of them are archiving ALL the games on TiVo or DVR. And none of them have access to ALL the games played in the past. And it's even more of a factor for fans, who primarily watch one team most of the time, and who often miss games because life gets in the way and they're not being paid to cover and write about them.

So what they DO see becomes their personalized standard. A reporter covering the Yankees becomes convinced that Derek Jeter's a brilliant defensive shortstop because of his little hop-turn-throw move. Those who followed the Sox during Jim Rice's era had their opinions skewed by watching him play half his games at Fenway Park where homers and hits off the wall were far easier to come by. Those who watch J.D. Drew's dry and robotic machinations come away thinking he doesn't run hard enough, swing often enough, or care enough.

And that's where stats come in. When they're examined in the proper context, calibrated for bias, and used to gauge a player's true value to the best and fairest possible extent, they remove the blinders and the tinted glasses that come with human nature and not being able to see all and know all. Stats certainly don't cover everything a player has done over their career (especially defensively), but they absolutely tell you more about the breadth of one's career production than what Jon Heyman or any other writer can possibly discern with his eyeballs or the peaked human emotions of a few fleeting moments where Jack Morris was a God.

Mind you I haven't even gotten into personal and judgmental bias, which Heyman makes a feeble attempt to cover up. It's clear he dislikes Blyleven, and loathes him for the way he complained over prior HOF sunbs. That's Heyman's absolute right as a person, but it's in direct conflict with the framework and goals of HOF voting. Such biases subconsciously alter one's assessments of what they see and hear, and how they interpret them. It's yet another major flaw in the "I saw them play" and "You had to be there" arguments.

[ivanvamp]

Ivan, I'm concerned that you might think some here are drawing a black and white distinction between "only stats" and "watching them play". Both are important, but when it comes to HOF evaluation the weighting of each becomes critical.

I agree, both should be considered. And never have I advocated for the idea that the eye test should supersede the stat totals. But, as I said in another post, it shouldn't be poo-poohed either.

Obviously there are things we see that are going to weigh more heavily when we rate how good ballplayers are. If we take 10 pedestrian defensive plays by Marco Scutaro where he threw out the batter at first base, and compare them to 10 incredible plays made by a leaping/diving/reaching Ozzie Smith that had the same result, there's no statistical difference. 10 balls in play, 10 fielding chances, 10 assists, 10 outs. But we'll both walk away marveling at the brilliance of Ozzie, as well we should, while merely shrugging at what Scutaro did. And there's nothing wrong with that if we're assessing those plays in a vacuum.

But when we allow a few select visual memories to blanket an entire career, there's a danger in that. Writers, even the most objective and even-handed of them, have a built-in bias. And it's not because of perceptions, it's because of their assignments. They're either beat writers spending the lion's share of their time following one team over a certain period of years, or columnists for a certain paper in a certain city in a certain time zone who don't even travel to cover a team. Either way, they're not watching all of the games all of the time. If they're on the east coast, they're in bed when the Angels, Padres, Dodgers, A's, Mariners and Giants are playing at home. None of them are archiving ALL the games on TiVo or DVR. And none of them have access to ALL the games played in the past. And it's even more of a factor for fans, who primarily watch one team most of the time, and who often miss games because life gets in the way and they're not being paid to cover and write about them.

So what they DO see becomes their personalized standard. A reporter covering the Yankees becomes convinced that Derek Jeter's a brilliant defensive shortstop because of his little hop-turn-throw move. Those who followed the Sox during Jim Rice's era had their opinions skewed by watching him play half his games at Fenway Park where homers and hits off the wall were far easier to come by. Those who watch J.D. Drew's dry and robotic machinations come away thinking he doesn't run hard enough, swing often enough, or care enough.

And that's where stats come in. When they're examined in the proper context, calibrated for bias, and used to gauge a player's true value to the best and fairest possible extent, they remove the blinders and the tinted glasses that come with human nature and not being able to see all and know all. Stats certainly don't cover everything a player has done over their career (especially defensively), but they absolutely tell you more about the breadth of one's career production than what Jon Heyman or any other writer can possibly discern with his eyeballs or the peaked human emotions of a few fleeting moments where Jack Morris was a God.

Mind you I haven't even gotten into personal and judgmental bias, which Heyman makes a feeble attempt to cover up. It's clear he dislikes Blyleven, and loathes him for the way he complained over prior HOF sunbs. That's Heyman's absolute right as a person, but it's in direct conflict with the framework and goals of HOF voting. Such biases subconsciously alter one's assessments of what they see and hear, and how they interpret them. It's yet another major flaw in the "I saw them play" and "You had to be there" arguments.

I don't disagree with anything you wrote in this post, and I'm not trying to argue that what we "see" is always (or even often) a better gauge than what the numbers say. I'm just saying that we all would admit, I think, that to get the full measure of a player it really helps to get a look at him, because there are things you can see that just don't show up on the stat sheet. It's not the biggest factor or the most important, but it shouldn't be completely dismissed either. That's all I'm trying to say.

That said, Heyman is ridiculous, and we all agree on that.

[Alternate34]

I don't disagree with anything you wrote in this post, and I'm not trying to argue that what we "see" is always (or even often) a better gauge than what the numbers say. I'm just saying that we all would admit, I think, that to get the full measure of a player it really helps to get a look at him, because there are things you can see that just don't show up on the stat sheet. It's not the biggest factor or the most important, but it shouldn't be completely dismissed either. That's all I'm trying to say.

But what is it we should be looking for when we watch a player? I guess that is what we're getting at. Good scouting has defined parameters. They measure players based on tools. You keep saying that we need to supplement stats with looking at a player, with which everyone agrees, but what is it that you are looking for? What do the eyes add?

mabrowndog did a great job outlining some of the things that we do need our eyes for. That is what needs to be explored.

[PBDWake]

I feel a need to jump back in. The quote that set off this whole discussion was Keith Law's, whose general approach has always been "stats don't lie, but they aren't the whole story either. You need to back that up with scouting". He still goes to games with his radar gun, scouts players. The point he was trying to make, as I believe I understand it, is that Heyman's point isn't "You had to be there to understand that there are no stats that measured how quickly Dwight Evans got balls out of his glove, and how powerful his arm was, that nobody was able to go from first to third on him". It's simply "You don't understand, you weren't there". It's ultimately exclusionist, and a firm acknowledgement that since you're not old enough/not a reporter/weren't in the locker room, your opinion just isn't valid on the subject, and nothing you say will ever change that. You didn't see the things he saw, as he saw them. Thus, you're wrong. That's what I feel like SJH and I are so opposed to. There are absolutely things that will not show up in the stat sheets. But things like "really wanting to win" are not one of them.

[Myt1]

If everything that happens on a baseball field can ultimately be measured by stats, then all you need to do to evaluate the quality of a player is look at the stats. You don't need to see them play at all.

But if there are things that are involved in the makeup and quality of a player that aren't measurable by stats, then it is important to see a player play to accurately judge the quality of that player.

Which of those two situations is how things really are?

This is the most bass-ackwards way I can think about presenting the argument. You're starting with two conclusions, and then asking which one represents the real world. You're smashing together a false dilemma in which you begged two questions.

Let's try to do this in logical order, shall we?

Give us a list of things that are involved in the makeup and quality of a player that aren't reflected in stats, and then tell us why each is important when evaluating the career of that player.

I don't think scouting can tell you anything about the "makeup" of a player. Maybe that's the bridge we won't meet on.

Nowhere did I (or anyone else say) that stats tell you everything you need to know about a player. Scouting has a ton of value. Defensive positioning, "tells", jumps on fly balls, time down to first base, jumps on SBs, etc., all done by scouting.

However, scouting has no value, IMO, in finding out about a player's intestinal fortitude or anything like that, unless scouts are somehow also psychiatrists. That's a bunch of hooey IMO.

Getting back to the thread topic, Heyman can suck it.

SJH, all of the things you mentioned are reflected in stats. Good defensive positioning leads to being able to field more balls. Tells, to the extent they matter, should be reflected in a pitcher's stats. Good jumps on fly balls lead to being able to field more balls. Time down to first base should be reflected in infield singles. Good jumps on stolen bases should lead to an increase in stolen bases.

IMHO, scouting helps identify things that can be fixed to allow younger players to improve. It's a going forward thing. If a player is positioned badly, you can train him to recognize hitter tendencies better to position himself better in the future. You can work with a pitcher to fix his tells in the future. If a player has a hitch in his swing, you can see that and work on it.

None of that stuff matters when looking backwards and evaluating a career. If a player has impeccable positioning, but cement shoes to the extent that he plays a below average right field (i.e. he gets to fewer balls than others), then who cares that his positioning was great?

IMHO, the sort of half-measures about stats reflect an uneasy feeling about relying on them. But, except at the most general level of pablum (e.g. "X was a feared hitter) all anyone's observations are are stats kept by an inaccurate and imprecise manner.

[CreightonGubanich]

Part of my question in all of this, and I'm not sure that I have a good answer: Is there a place in Hall of Fame voting for things that not only don't show up in stats, but don't add anything to the value of the player? Now, let me just say off the bat, that Jon Heyman is an idiot. I believe that Blyleven is absolutely a HOF'er, while his case for Jack Morris is moronic.

But there are aspects of a player that have nothing to do with WAR or how good he was, that do affect his place in the game and how he is remembered. Some examples: a pitcher's raw stuff. It may not show up in the stats, and in terms of evaluating how good a player was, it's meaningless. And yet, a player with tremendous raw stuff will be talked about and remembered differently. For better or worse, there's a romanticism attached to velocity, and players with a singular defining pitch - Trevor Hoffman's changeup, Mo Rivera's cutter, etc - get spoken of and remembered differently.

Another example is the Jim Rice corollary. I know that peak performance is factored in even by those just looking at stats. But part of Rice's case for the Hall included stuff like his "most feared hitter" title, and his reputation for breaking bats on check swings.

These types of things add no value to a player's performance. Should that be grounds for dismissing them outright? The voting instructions for the Hall are fairly ambiguous: “Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the team(s) on which the player played.” Definitely opens the door for subjective criteria like steriod use and leadership and the like. For better or worse, these things impact the "fame" of the player in question. If the purpose of the Hall is the tell the story of the history of baseball, should some allowance be made for those memorable characters? Or is the objective solely to enshrine the highest-performing baseball players without any regard for what it was like to "watch them play"?

Again, not sure I have an answer. Maybe it should be just the objectively best players, in which case I agree that stats tell you pretty much all you need to know. But clearly there are, and probably always will be, voters who feel differently.

[Rasputin]

That's fine...not trying to make this a thread about JD. Just pointing out that what we "see" is often not what the stats seem to say.

If what you see is not what the stats seem to say then either the stats are bad or your eyesight is bad. It's probably your eyesight.

[Myt1]

If what you see is not what the stats seem to say then either the stats are bad or your eyesight is bad. It's probably your eyesight.

This much more succinctly states my best guess about the way the world works, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

[mabrowndog]

For better or worse, there's a romanticism attached to velocity, and players with a singular defining pitch - Trevor Hoffman's changeup, Mo Rivera's cutter, etc - get spoken of and remembered differently.

You're right about this. It certainly worked for Bruce Sutter and the splitter. Unfortunately, it didn't work so well for Blyleven and his curve.


By the way, I'd urge everyone here to buy and read Bill James' Whatever Happened To The Hall of Fame?. In it, James addresses the very things Creighton notes -- the anecdotal ratings and eyewitness testimony of those who saw him play. In assessing players of the pre-video era, or those he never saw personally, he takes great care to include not only the opinions offered and published immediately after a certain event involving a player, but also those offered as a summation of a player's career after his playing days are over. There are two different sets of comments because of the emotions, hype and accuracy of recall involved.

If the purpose of the Hall is the tell the story of the history of baseball, should some allowance be made for those memorable characters?

Great question. Guys like Leo Durocher and Dizzy Dean were inducted as much for their character as for their on-field contributions as players or managers, but there's no question in my mind that their plaques add not only to their own personal legacies and legends but to the larger history of the sport. Had Mark Fidrych or Jose Lima gone on to have more longevity and very good but not "great" careers, they might well have fallen into this group. Similarly, had Babe Ruth been just "very good" but not great, his character and persona might have gotten him inducted anyway.

[Shelterdog]

Back to our regularly scheduled Heyman bashing; he just posted this on twitter.

"please stop the tweets on eckstein's OPS. dont care. he is an alltime overachiever. and so are his teams."

Have at it boys.

[JohntheBaptist]

I was well aware that Heyman was pretty crappy and obvious Boras guy, but I really had no clue he was this bad. Twitter brings a lot of bad out of these guys.

[joe dokes]

Back to our regularly scheduled Heyman bashing; he just posted this on twitter.

"please stop the tweets on eckstein's OPS. dont care. he is an alltime overachiever. and so are his teams."

Have at it boys.

Has anyone ever asked him what he means by "overachiever?"

I wonder if he realizes that by calling him an overachiever, he's also saying that he's not that skilled. All he is is short (and translucent). That others questioned his ability to play baseball as he was coming up doesn't mean he didn't have that ability. The whole idea of "overachievers" and "underachievers" is little more than an ex post facto attempt to rationalize away one's mistakes in evaluating someone's talent.

[PBDWake]

This is an honest question, but... Is Andruw Jones really the second best fielding center fielder ever? Baseball Reference has him as #1 career in CF for Total Zone Runs for people with a minimum of 500 games in Center, but only #50 in Range Factor/9 for CF. I'm not versed enough in defensive stats to know how good of a measurement those are. I ask because Heyman tweeted it, and there were an awful lot of really good defensive CFs over the years. Just wondering how accurate that is.

[Trlicek's Whip]

Back to our regularly scheduled Heyman bashing; he just posted this on twitter.

Here's some more damnable statistics for you, Mr. Heyman:

Twitter Name	Followers	Tweets	Avg Tweets/Day	TPF Index (Tweets per Follower)
Lady Gaga	7,635,204	580	1.6	0.0000760
Justin Bieber	6,560,196	6,662	10.4	0.0010155
Britney Spears	6,521,367	1,020	1.8	0.0001564
Barack Obama	6,249,089	1,164	1.8	0.0001863
Ashton Kutcher	6,176,466	6,401	9.4	0.0010364
Jon Heyman	62,535	14,067	35.6	0.2249460

According to his Tweet Cloud, two of his top five most frequently used hashtags are #yankees and #yanks.

Jon Heyman's Twitter account succinctly sums up the all noise, no signal, aggressively vapid prattle and masturbation that is the Cult of Jon Heyman. He's the sports media equivalent of a cold-caller spamming you Nigerian lottery tickets during the dinner hour.

Edited by Trlicek's Whip, 06 January 2011 - 02:49 PM.

[ivanvamp]

But what is it we should be looking for when we watch a player? I guess that is what we're getting at. Good scouting has defined parameters. They measure players based on tools. You keep saying that we need to supplement stats with looking at a player, with which everyone agrees, but what is it that you are looking for? What do the eyes add?

mabrowndog did a great job outlining some of the things that we do need our eyes for. That is what needs to be explored.

When I look at a player, I look for the "little things" that don't show up in the stats. Some examples are:

- Outfielders: do they throw to the correct base?
- Do they hit the cutoff man with precision?
- Do they backup plays correctly?
- Baserunning: do they correctly judge texas leaguers...will they drop in or not? Sometimes the best baserunning play means you hold and don't advance.
- First basemen: do they dig balls out of the ground and save their IF errors? If they don't, they (1b) won't get charged an error so they won't be "penalized" statistically, but you know when you see them...wow, they can really play defense.
- Catchers: how many nasty pitches can they block? If they don't block them, they'll go as wild pitches and, again, won't be credited against the catchers' stats, and a successful block isn't credited to the catcher as a positive stat. But it's a very real thing.

Those kinds of things. You watch enough baseball, if you're looking for these things, you can tell the difference between players.

Hope that makes sense.

[ivanvamp]

If what you see is not what the stats seem to say then either the stats are bad or your eyesight is bad. It's probably your eyesight.

Which, I admit, is totally possible. Not 100% always the case, but very possible.

[ivanvamp]

I feel a need to jump back in. The quote that set off this whole discussion was Keith Law's, whose general approach has always been "stats don't lie, but they aren't the whole story either. You need to back that up with scouting". He still goes to games with his radar gun, scouts players. The point he was trying to make, as I believe I understand it, is that Heyman's point isn't "You had to be there to understand that there are no stats that measured how quickly Dwight Evans got balls out of his glove, and how powerful his arm was, that nobody was able to go from first to third on him". It's simply "You don't understand, you weren't there". It's ultimately exclusionist, and a firm acknowledgement that since you're not old enough/not a reporter/weren't in the locker room, your opinion just isn't valid on the subject, and nothing you say will ever change that. You didn't see the things he saw, as he saw them. Thus, you're wrong. That's what I feel like SJH and I are so opposed to. There are absolutely things that will not show up in the stat sheets. But things like "really wanting to win" are not one of them.

I agree, FWIW.

[mabrowndog]

Here's some more damnable statistics for you, Mr. Heyman:

I want to make sweet, sweet love to this awesome post. Just tweeted him a little note inviting him to check it out, along with the rest of this thread. I doubt he shows.

[PBDWake]

When I look at a player, I look for the "little things" that don't show up in the stats. Some examples are:

- Outfielders: do they throw to the correct base?
- Do they hit the cutoff man with precision?
- Do they backup plays correctly?
- Baserunning: do they correctly judge texas leaguers...will they drop in or not? Sometimes the best baserunning play means you hold and don't advance.
- First basemen: do they dig balls out of the ground and save their IF errors? If they don't, they (1b) won't get charged an error so they won't be "penalized" statistically, but you know when you see them...wow, they can really play defense.
- Catchers: how many nasty pitches can they block? If they don't block them, they'll go as wild pitches and, again, won't be credited against the catchers' stats, and a successful block isn't credited to the catcher as a positive stat. But it's a very real thing.

Those kinds of things. You watch enough baseball, if you're looking for these things, you can tell the difference between players.

Hope that makes sense.

These are all utterly valid things to look for when evaluating talent. However, at the same time, are any of these things worthy of being the backbone of a Hall of Fame arguement? They're certainly all difficult to quantify in statistics, but is the combined value of them greater than, say, 20 more points in OBP? I feel like these are the sorts of things that separate really similarly tiered players from each other, but... Juan Pierre really really practices bunting. He goes out before games and rolls balls down the first and third base lines to see how they'll read. It's admirable, and a lesson for our children in preparation and effort, but it's not going to suddenly make him a great player. And that's the problem with the Heyman case.

[Myt1]

These are all utterly valid things to look for when evaluating talent. However, at the same time, are any of these things worthy of being the backbone of a Hall of Fame arguement? They're certainly all difficult to quantify in statistics, but is the combined value of them greater than, say, 20 more points in OBP? I feel like these are the sorts of things that separate really similarly tiered players from each other, but... Juan Pierre really really practices bunting. He goes out before games and rolls balls down the first and third base lines to see how they'll read. It's admirable, and a lesson for our children in preparation and effort, but it's not going to suddenly make him a great player. And that's the problem with the Heyman case.

They're not really difficult to quantify in statistics. People just haven't done so because they perceive the value to be marginal.

It wouldn't be difficult to keep track of the number of bad throws a first-basemen dug out each game. You could even assign a 1 for a good play and a 2 for an excellent play. Similarly, you could keep track of the number of times someone airmailed a cutoff man. You could quantify the number of times a catcher blocked a ball.

Those things are no more observational than whether a borderline play was a hit or an error. In fact, you'd want to quantify them because you don't watch every first baseman every game, and if you're going to rely on that sort of stuff when evaluating a player, it makes sense to do it relative to his peers. Otherwise, confirmation bias and blue car syndrome kick in.

Like you say, these sorts of things mean little when evaluating a career for the HoF.

[zenter]

They're not really difficult to quantify in statistics. People just haven't done so because they perceive the value to be marginal.

It wouldn't be difficult to keep track of the number of bad throws a first-basemen dug out each game. You could even assign a 1 for a good play and a 2 for an excellent play. Similarly, you could keep track of the number of times someone airmailed a cutoff man. You could quantify the number of times a catcher blocked a ball.

Those things are no more observational than whether a borderline play was a hit or an error. In fact, you'd want to quantify them because you don't watch every first baseman every game, and if you're going to rely on that sort of stuff when evaluating a player, it makes sense to do it relative to his peers. Otherwise, confirmation bias and blue car syndrome kick in.

Like you say, these sorts of things mean little when evaluating a career for the HoF.

Even if you quantify these, they don't take into account awesomeness factor or hustle.

[Rasputin]

This much more succinctly states my best guess about the way the world works, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

By the stats or by your eyesight?

But seriously, this is how we learn new things. Someone sees something that others don't. Then you friggin' verify it. It doesn't matter if it's cosmic microwave background radiation or that bunting is stupid. If you can't verify what you're seeing then it's probably bullshit and more to the point you have to assume it's bullshit until it's verified.

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Back to our regularly scheduled Heyman bashing; he just posted this on twitter.

"please stop the tweets on eckstein's OPS. dont care. he is an alltime overachiever. and so are his teams."

Have at it boys.

I'm not saying that Heyman is right, but this opinion isn't in the minority. Last night I heard Bill Buckner on EEI and he was singing the praises of Eckstein. Loves what "the little guy can do" and loves his attitude, the intangibles that he brings to the clubhouse, etc.

So when Heyman tweets or says something like this, it's not like he's coming up with this himself. It seems like it's all over baseball.

And this is why most Major Leaguers should be lobotomized.

[Rasputin]

When I look at a player, I look for the "little things" that don't show up in the stats. Some examples are:

- Outfielders: do they throw to the correct base?
- Do they hit the cutoff man with precision?
- Do they backup plays correctly?
- Baserunning: do they correctly judge texas leaguers...will they drop in or not? Sometimes the best baserunning play means you hold and don't advance.
- First basemen: do they dig balls out of the ground and save their IF errors? If they don't, they (1b) won't get charged an error so they won't be "penalized" statistically, but you know when you see them...wow, they can really play defense.
- Catchers: how many nasty pitches can they block? If they don't block them, they'll go as wild pitches and, again, won't be credited against the catchers' stats, and a successful block isn't credited to the catcher as a positive stat. But it's a very real thing.

Those kinds of things. You watch enough baseball, if you're looking for these things, you can tell the difference between players.

Hope that makes sense.

It does make sense but I think it's just a bit off. Throwing to the correct base, hitting the cutoff man, and backing up plays aren't the key things. Keeping runners from taking extra bases is the key thing and throwing to the correct base, hitting the cutoff man, and backing up plays are how you keep runners from taking extra bases.

Baserunning, for every given situation you can establish the value of the extra base and the loss of value in the out. Use these to establish the breakeven point and compare it to how often he's successful.

The WP/PB thing is completely arbitrary and there's no reason you can't combine them.

And fielding at first base or elsewhere...scouting abilities like scooping is only relevant if you're projecting future value. Once a career is over all you care about is whether he made the plays.

When people say things can't be found in the stats I generally find that they haven't looked very hard. There is an astonishing amount of information out there.

You cannot watch everyone and no matter how closely you watch a ballplayer your assessment of him is meaningless except in comparison to other ballplayers. You can't observe everyone.

[JohntheBaptist]

David Eckstein must get really tired of that shit. They probably all think it's a really genuine compliment but it isn't--it's condescending. "Doesn't matter how good he was, you all leave the little guy alone he had moxie!" I remember ESPN did a story interviewing some of his peers in '02, and I distinctly recall Barry Bonds saying that watching him "overcome" what God gave him and to play that hard "brings tears to his eyes," which is so fucking insulting it boggles the mind.

"Love what the little guys can do!" I mean I'm no Eckstein-the-player fan at all either but that shit would get real old real quick for me.

[Lars The Wanderer]

David Eckstein must get really tired of that shit. They probably all think it's a really genuine compliment but it isn't--it's condescending. "Doesn't matter how good he was, you all leave the little guy alone he had moxie!" I remember ESPN did a story interviewing some of his peers in '02, and I distinctly recall Barry Bonds saying that watching him "overcome" what God gave him and to play that hard "brings tears to his eyes," which is so fucking insulting it boggles the mind.

"Love what the little guys can do!" I mean I'm no Eckstein-the-player fan at all either but that shit would get real old real quick for me.

Hush, shrimpy!

[PrestonBroadus Lives]

It does make sense but I think it's just a bit off. Throwing to the correct base, hitting the cutoff man, and backing up plays aren't the key things. Keeping runners from taking extra bases is the key thing and throwing to the correct base, hitting the cutoff man, and backing up plays are how you keep runners from taking extra bases.

Baserunning, for every given situation you can establish the value of the extra base and the loss of value in the out. Use these to establish the breakeven point and compare it to how often he's successful.

The WP/PB thing is completely arbitrary and there's no reason you can't combine them.

And fielding at first base or elsewhere...scouting abilities like scooping is only relevant if you're projecting future value. Once a career is over all you care about is whether he made the plays.

When people say things can't be found in the stats I generally find that they haven't looked very hard. There is an astonishing amount of information out there.

You cannot watch everyone and no matter how closely you watch a ballplayer your assessment of him is meaningless except in comparison to other ballplayers. You can't observe everyone.

These two sentences really are where the whole "you had to be there" argument begins and ends. Morris was clearly one of Heyman's favorites at one point, so he probably remembers all the good about his career. That's not the problem. I hold a very favorable view of Dewey Evans because he was my favorite player growing up. The problem comes when that stats push up against and maybe even contradict those memories you had. At that point you have two choices: Be rational and accept that maybe your favorite player wasn't quite as great as you thought he was while you were watching him or be irrational and make arguments like "you had to be there". I've accepted that Evans wasn't as great as I once thought he was, but still am able to fondly recall his career and all the great times I had watching him play. For some reason, Heyman can't do that and almost seems to take it as a personal slight when anyone questions Morris' greatness. Whatever, it's not like anyone really though Heyman was rational to begin with.

I will say that the "you had to be there" argument does have some use, but I think it only works for specific plays and performances and not over entire careers. One of the first baseball memories I thought of for this argument was Buerle's between the legs flip early last year. Sure, he gets credit for the assist in the stats, but you really just had to be there to appreciate the awesomeness of that play.

[ivanvamp]

These are all utterly valid things to look for when evaluating talent. However, at the same time, are any of these things worthy of being the backbone of a Hall of Fame arguement?

No, and I've never said they were. They are supplemental bits of information. And they help tell the more complete story of the quality of an individual player. Stats tell an awful lot over the course of a career, but they don't quite tell everything.

[ivanvamp]

It does make sense but I think it's just a bit off. Throwing to the correct base, hitting the cutoff man, and backing up plays aren't the key things. Keeping runners from taking extra bases is the key thing and throwing to the correct base, hitting the cutoff man, and backing up plays are how you keep runners from taking extra bases.

Baserunning, for every given situation you can establish the value of the extra base and the loss of value in the out. Use these to establish the breakeven point and compare it to how often he's successful.

The WP/PB thing is completely arbitrary and there's no reason you can't combine them.

And fielding at first base or elsewhere...scouting abilities like scooping is only relevant if you're projecting future value. Once a career is over all you care about is whether he made the plays.

When people say things can't be found in the stats I generally find that they haven't looked very hard. There is an astonishing amount of information out there.

You cannot watch everyone and no matter how closely you watch a ballplayer your assessment of him is meaningless except in comparison to other ballplayers. You can't observe everyone.

I'm not saying you *can't* quantify some of this stuff. I'm simply saying that right now there aren't stats about this (and there's no way to go back in history to get this information).

I don't think we're very far off in agreement here. I think we can all agree on certain premises:

(1) Over the course of a player's career, the myriad of statistical data give us a good overall picture of the quality of a player.
(2) Nevertheless, they don't tell the complete story; some things you have to see with your own eyes in order to make correct evaluations.
(3) That said, the "eye test" doesn't trump the stats; it's a complementary thing. It is real however.
(4) Heyman is a clown.

Agreed?

[PBDWake]

No, and I've never said they were. They are supplemental bits of information. And they help tell the more complete story of the quality of an individual player. Stats tell an awful lot over the course of a career, but they don't quite tell everything.

Heh. I didn't mean to say you did. What the problem I think we're having here is debating you and Heyman simultaneously, when the same sentence means different things to the two of you.

[ivanvamp]

Heh. I didn't mean to say you did. What the problem I think we're having here is debating you and Heyman simultaneously, when the same sentence means different things to the two of you.

Right. I'm on your side in your steel cage match with Heyman, that's for sure.

[kieckeredinthehead]

One of Blyleven's best seasons occurred when Heyman was 12 years old. Given the general inavailability of MLB.tv at that time, I'm not sure how "there" Heyman actually was.

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

A couple of things.

First, in an effort to be self congratulatory, this thread is fucking awesome. Thank you everyone including Heyman who has proven himself to be a below replacement level baseball writer. There is no "you had to be there" when evaluating his work. Its lazy, intellectually dishonest and a its also a scathing indictment of Sports Illustrated for giving him a platform to publish what effectively amounts to garbage. On the flip side, this thread goes a long way toward framing how people should look at a baseball career.

That said, ivanvamp and others deserve credit here for pointing out that observation can enhance or detract from an otherwise objective player's performance. The crux of the argument for most non-SABR types is that the stat heads simply reduce the game to statistics. HSB and others make a valid point that its simply impossible to observe every event in a player's career and your eyes can indeed fool you.

However, imagine a scenario where you have two players who play the same position during the same era and who are statistically identical in every single way (e.g. games played, PAs, defensive metrics and WAR). They are the same player, yet people may clearly prefer one over the other for a multitude of reasons that are not captured in any valued statistical measures. Perhaps its simply that one gives maximum effort all the time while the other does not. They arrive at the same results, however its entirely conceivable that the former is valued more than the latter.

Now I know some will question how to define what giving maximum effort means but everyday life, let alone sports, is rich with examples of people who are constantly "hustling" versus those that do enough to get by. I imagine most people reading this thread can immediately think of family members, friends or coworkers who fit these descriptions. And maybe those perceptions are incorrect...but then again, maybe they aren't.

The point is that observations, while subject to bias, should have some role in evaluating performance.

Finally, PrestonBroadus Lives deserves a membership if only for an awesome screen-name.

[ivanvamp]

A couple of things.

First, in an effort to be self congratulatory, this thread is fucking awesome. Thank you everyone including Heyman who has proven himself to be a below replacement level baseball writer. There is no "you had to be there" when evaluating his work. Its lazy, intellectually dishonest and a its also a scathing indictment of Sports Illustrated for giving him a platform to publish what effectively amounts to garbage. On the flip side, this thread goes a long way toward framing how people should look at a baseball career.

That said, ivanvamp and others deserve credit here for pointing out that observation can enhance or detract from an otherwise objective player's performance. The crux of the argument for most non-SABR types is that the stat heads simply reduce the game to statistics. HSB and others make a valid point that its simply impossible to observe every event in a player's career and your eyes can indeed fool you.

However, imagine a scenario where you have two players who play the same position during the same era and who are statistically identical in every single way (e.g. games played, PAs, defensive metrics and WAR). They are the same player, yet people may clearly prefer one over the other for a multitude of reasons that are not captured in any valued statistical measures. Perhaps its simply that one gives maximum effort all the time while the other does not. They arrive at the same results, however its entirely conceivable that the former is valued more than the latter.

Now I know some will question how to define what giving maximum effort means but everyday life, let alone sports, is rich with examples of people who are constantly "hustling" versus those that do enough to get by. I imagine most people reading this thread can immediately think of family members, friends or coworkers who fit these descriptions. And maybe those perceptions are incorrect...but then again, maybe they aren't.

The point is that observations, while subject to bias, should have some role in evaluating performance.

Finally, PrestonBroadus Lives deserves a membership if only for an awesome screen-name.

I think one other issue to consider, and yes it's an intangible, is leadership. There's no metric for it, no way to measure it, but only the totally clueless person would deny its reality. Anyone who has served in the military, been involved in sports at any level, been in business...leadership is crucial to the success of a team or organization. Most of us are not around these athletes to know what kind of leadership they bring to a team. Sportswriters tend, due to the nature of their business, to be around them more. It's maybe not enough to give a really fair evaluation, but it's something that should be thrown into the mix.

Consider this scenario. Player X is having a rough stretch and is getting down on himself (it happens). Player Y is a guy who is a real leader. He pulls X aside and says, ok, let's talk about it. He listens, gives some advice, even spends extra time working with player X on a few things. Scouting reports, hitting tips, whatever. Things that, yeah, the coaches should do, but sometimes - as anyone who has ever played sports can tell you - it's received better coming from a peer. Player X then turns it around and attributes it to player Y's help.

Now, there is no stat that covers player Y's contribution there. In fact, the turnaround seems to be totally to the credit of player X. But player X knows that most of the credit should go to player Y. It's a leadership thing and there is no metric for it.

But it is very, very real.

How much should that play into the HOF consideration? Who knows. But put it this way: if I had two players with equivalent stats, and Jones is, by all accounts, a quality leader who goes out of his way to help others on his team, and Smith is, by all accounts, a pretty self-centered "it's all about me" kind of guy, and I had one HOF vote, I'd go with Jones. And it would be very fair to do so.

That said, we fans can't really know who does what. Maybe guys that seem to not be leaders (b/c they're quiet, etc.) really are, and guys that seem to be leaders (b/c they're outspoken) aren't. But sportswriters, as a profession, probably are more in tune with that than the average fan. We kind of have to rely on the anecdotal evidence for that. But that doesn't make it any less real.

[joe dokes]

I think one other issue to consider, and yes it's an intangible, is leadership. There's no metric for it, no way to measure it, but only the totally clueless person would deny its reality. Anyone who has served in the military, been involved in sports at any level, been in business...leadership is crucial to the success of a team or organization. Most of us are not around these athletes to know what kind of leadership they bring to a team. Sportswriters tend, due to the nature of their business, to be around them more. It's maybe not enough to give a really fair evaluation, but it's something that should be thrown into the mix.

Consider this scenario. Player X is having a rough stretch and is getting down on himself (it happens). Player Y is a guy who is a real leader. He pulls X aside and says, ok, let's talk about it. He listens, gives some advice, even spends extra time working with player X on a few things. Scouting reports, hitting tips, whatever. Things that, yeah, the coaches should do, but sometimes - as anyone who has ever played sports can tell you - it's received better coming from a peer. Player X then turns it around and attributes it to player Y's help.

Now, there is no stat that covers player Y's contribution there. In fact, the turnaround seems to be totally to the credit of player X. But player X knows that most of the credit should go to player Y. It's a leadership thing and there is no metric for it.

But it is very, very real.

How much should that play into the HOF consideration? Who knows. But put it this way: if I had two players with equivalent stats, and Jones is, by all accounts, a quality leader who goes out of his way to help others on his team, and Smith is, by all accounts, a pretty self-centered "it's all about me" kind of guy, and I had one HOF vote, I'd go with Jones. And it would be very fair to do so.

That said, we fans can't really know who does what. Maybe guys that seem to not be leaders (b/c they're quiet, etc.) really are, and guys that seem to be leaders (b/c they're outspoken) aren't. But sportswriters, as a profession, probably are more in tune with that than the average fan. We kind of have to rely on the anecdotal evidence for that. But that doesn't make it any less real.

I suppose a short respone is "If its not enough to give a fair evaluation" then it definitely should NOT be in the mix. But why should I stop at 20 words when 200 will do.

Even if I agreed that something like "leadership" could serve as a tie-breaker in a vote like this, its not the absence of a metric that makes reliance on it fatal (or futile?), its the fact that I dont think the bolded sentence is remotely true enough of the time for it to be a valid consideration. I think Bonds might be a good case in point. At the risk of hyperbole (but probably not too much of it), every single member of the BBWAA thinks that Barry Bonds is a c**ks***er. It also seems that every one of his teammates thought he was a great teammate. I have little doubt that the former would carry the day over the latter when it came time for Writer X to cast his mythical tie-breaking vote.

As the years go by, its become more and more apparent to me that the assessment of things like "leadership" and "good-teammate-i-tude" are more of a by-product of the reporter's relationship with the player than anything the player actually does. This is NOT to say that these qualities -- like leadership -- don't exist. Its just that when a Heyman, Gammons,Stark, Kurkjian or any one of dozens of writers we've never heard of put qualiites like "leadership" onto the HOF vote scale, they are doing the equivalent of simply guessing at the guy's career batting average without actually looking it up. The window into which they view "player-world" is so constricted as to render most of their observations meaningless.

There's also a practical problem. Your scenario -- even if generalized to make it more realistic -- likely involves players from different teams, and may involve different times (although probably not different eras). As such, you will be ill-equipped to rely on your own clubhouse observations to compare the two players.

Again, this isn't to say that these things aren't relevant in writing a player's obituary, or reminiscing about his career.

[SumnerH]

Even if I agreed that something like "leadership" could serve as a tie-breaker in a vote like this, its not the absence of a metric that makes reliance on it fatal (or futile?), its the fact that I dont think the bolded sentence is remotely true enough of the time for it to be a valid consideration. I think Bonds might be a good case in point. At the risk of hyperbole (but probably not too much of it), every single member of the BBWAA thinks that Barry Bonds is a c**ks***er. It also seems that every one of his teammates thought he was a great teammate.

I can feel the love:

That's Barry," says San Francisco second baseman Jeff Kent. "He doesn't answer questions. He palms everybody off on us, so we have to do his talking for him. But you get used to it. Barry does a lot of questionable things. But you get used to it. Sometimes it rubs the younger guys the wrong way, and sometimes it rubs the veterans the wrong way. You just hope he shows up for the game and performs. I've learned not to worry about it or think about it or analyze it. I was raised to be a team guy, and I am, but Barry's Barry. It took me two years to learn to live with it, but I learned.

Andy Van Slyke and Bonds weren't exactly tight, either. I've never really heard any of his teammates rave about him--you got a fair amount of "he's a great player, and he keeps to himself off the field" or "I don't know him". Not indictments, but not "he's a great teammate" material either.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Yeah, but Jeff Kent was pretty widely known to be an asshole too.

[twothousandone]

Yeah, but Jeff Kent was pretty widely known to be an asshole too.

I think Barry Bonds said that himself.

Is there a place in Hall of Fame voting for things that not only don't show up in stats, but don't add anything to the value of the player?

There's the Hall of Fame museum. The glove with which Wille Mays caught Vic Wertz drive is their, so are bleacher seats from Comiskey Park. Fastest pitch ever recorded, most MLB batters faced without ever recording an out, those kinds of things are there. They don't really have a place in HoF voting, though I am sure the speed of Ryan's fastball helped ever so slightly. 'Course, the speed led to the Ks.

Consider this scenario. Player X is having a rough stretch and is getting down on himself (it happens). Player Y is a guy who is a real leader. He pulls X aside and says, ok, let's talk about it. He listens, gives some advice, even spends extra time working with player X on a few things. Scouting reports, hitting tips, whatever. Things that, yeah, the coaches should do, but sometimes - as anyone who has ever played sports can tell you - it's received better coming from a peer. Player X then turns it around and attributes it to player Y's help.

Assuming the mythical Pee Wee Reese puts his arm around Jackie Robinson thing occured (Jackie's daughter says her father said it did), would that count for Reese? (Of course, if it did happen, especially if it did happen in Cincy, it's a hell of a gesture by Pee Wee. But he gets no credit for Robinson's career. None.) Would it count toward him being "better" than Rizzuto?

I had two players with equivalent stats, and Jones is, by all accounts, a quality leader who goes out of his way to help others on his team, and Smith is, by all accounts, a pretty self-centered "it's all about me" kind of guy, and I had one HOF vote, I'd go with Jones. And it would be very fair to do so.

But your votes aren't limited, so you never really have to make that choice. How about this -- Luis Tiant had to flee Cuba. Does that make him "better" than Hunter? (or maybe more accurately, is that another thing that makes him better than Hunter.)

[ivanvamp]

Simple question, twothousandone: Do you believe that the quality of leadership is a real thing, and that it actually helps others perform their jobs better on a team? Or do you think such a quality doesn't exist?

[joe dokes]

Simple question, twothousandone: Do you believe that the quality of leadership is a real thing, and that it actually helps others perform their jobs better on a team? Or do you think such a quality doesn't exist?

I am 103% sure that some derivation of the word "leader" will appear below the calm bronze eyes of Derek Jeter in Cooperstown.

Edited by joe dokes, 07 January 2011 - 02:32 PM.

[Alternate34]

Assuming the mythical Pee Wee Reese puts his arm around Jackie Robinson thing occured (Jackie's daughter says her father said it did), would that count for Reese? (Of course, if it did happen, especially if it did happen in Cincy, it's a hell of a gesture by Pee Wee. But he gets no credit for Robinson's career. None.) Would it count toward him being "better" than Rizzuto?

Assuming it's true, I would. That bravery was not only good in its own right, it was good for baseball, it improved the honor of the game, it had an effect on baseball beyond wins and losses. That is exactly the type of thing the character clause is designed for or should have been designed for. I don't think it is a huge thing in general. Ted Williams won't be taken out for being a dick (also because he did participate in two wars) but Dick Allen might (though there is some extenuating circumstances for him because of racism he encountered, though he was a mighty big dick).

For including something, you can't get Willie Bloomquist in, but if you consider Pee Wee Reese on the borderline, I would say this should help his candidacy as compared to others.

But your votes aren't limited, so you never really have to make that choice. How about this -- Luis Tiant had to flee Cuba. Does that make him "better" than Hunter? (or maybe more accurately, is that another thing that makes him better than Hunter.)

I like the increased accuracy.

This is more difficult. Yes, Tiant added to the game of baseball by fleeing Cuba, but does it add to the game itself? I wouldn't consider it, though I wouldn't quibble with someone who did, depending on the weight put on it.

[twothousandone]

Simple question, twothousandone: Do you believe that the quality of leadership is a real thing, and that it actually helps others perform their jobs better on a team? Or do you think such a quality doesn't exist?

Yes, I believe it exists, and it can help others perform their jobs better. But I also believe it is a learned behavior, and that most baseball players haven't really "learned" it. The result is that someone ends up being perceived as a leader, and in a different context, they'd be nothing. And to expect sportswriters to understand it and appropriately value it is comical.

I think Mike Greenwell was considered a leader, right up until it became all about him. I remember Jason Giambi on the A's, stuck at 1st base in the playoffs, and shouting at the runner on second for not going to 3b. Was that leadership (as I remember the broadcaster calling it) or was he being an ass? Had Giambi been holding after pratice sessions on baserunning for a month prior, and he was reminding the baserunner of things they'd been practicing, maybe it's leadership.
There's video somewhere of SF Barry Bonds (the major leage ass) "coaching" a younger player on hitting. It seemed to be valuable and appreciated advice. Is it leadership? Mike Timlin believed Tim Wakefield was a leader for taking himself off the playoff roster. I'm sure some in Minnesota though Brad Radke was a leader for pitching with a torn labrum. Jimy Willimas was a leader (even though it was kinda', sorta' his job) for taking young Trot Nixon to a practice field in Florida and working on fielding of all sorts apart from the rest of practice.
Roberto Clemente was a leader (and courageous) -- he was going to bring relief supplies to the desparate people in Nicaragua, trouble with the plane be damned. Mo Vaughn may actually be a leader -- last I knew he was still active in youth programs that seemed to make a difference for some. Willie Mays was a leader for wading into the melee and pulling the battered and bleeding, yet still enraged, Johnny Roseboro out of the fight. Koufax was a leader for refusing to play on the Sabbath. I'm not sure any of those incidents or the leadership character of those men had any impact on the performance of their teammates.

[joe dokes]

Yes, I believe it exists, and it can help others perform their jobs better. But I also believe it is a learned behavior, and that most baseball players haven't really "learned" it. The result is that someone ends up being perceived as a leader, and in a different context, they'd be nothing. And to expect sportswriters to understand it and appropriately value it is comical. I think Mike Greenwell was considered a leader, right up until it became all about him. I remember Jason Giambi on the A's, stuck at 1st base in the playoffs, and shouting at the runner on second for not going to 3b. Was that leadership (as I remember the broadcaster calling it) or was he being an ass? Had Giambi been holding after pratice sessions on baserunning for a month prior, and he was reminding the baserunner of things they'd been practicing, maybe it's leadership.
There's video somewhere of SF Barry Bonds (the major leage ass) "coaching" a younger player on hitting. It seemed to be valuable and appreciated advice. Is it leadership? Mike Timlin believed Tim Wakefield was a leader for taking himself off the playoff roster. I'm sure some in Minnesota though Brad Radke was a leader for pitching with a torn labrum. Jimy Willimas was a leader (even though it was kinda', sorta' his job) for taking young Trot Nixon to a practice field in Florida and working on fielding of all sorts apart from the rest of practice.
Roberto Clemente was a leader (and courageous) -- he was going to bring relief supplies to the desparate people in Nicaragua, trouble with the plane be damned. Mo Vaughn may actually be a leader -- last I knew he was still active in youth programs that seemed to make a difference for some. Willie Mays was a leader for wading into the melee and pulling the battered and bleeding, yet still enraged, Johnny Roseboro out of the fight. Koufax was a leader for refusing to play on the Sabbath. I'm not sure any of those incidents or the leadership character of those men had any impact on the performance of their teammates.

This is an interesting dichotomy. There are obvious leader-ish kind of things -- Koufax, Clemente -- that should be & have been recognized in some way separate from the HOF vote. But I think the stuff that ivanvamp is talking about is the more day-to-day stuff. The problem with that type of stuff is that not only it impossible to quantify, it is almost impossible to even identify. That's why the bolded line is the key. Just how do you -- as a Hall of Fame voter -- know when a guy has compiled leadership points? Does a Paul O'Neil type gain or lose leadership value because of his propensity to break stuff? Its one thing to have voters disagreeing as to the value of certain absolute statistics; but its another to have them disagree over something that cant even be identified.

[BucketOBalls]

This is an interesting dichotomy. There are obvious leader-ish kind of things -- Koufax, Clemente -- that should be & have been recognized in some way separate from the HOF vote. But I think the stuff that ivanvamp is talking about is the more day-to-day stuff. The problem with that type of stuff is that not only it impossible to quantify, it is almost impossible to even identify. That's why the bolded line is the key. Just how do you -- as a Hall of Fame voter -- know when a guy has compiled leadership points? Does a Paul O'Neil type gain or lose leadership value because of his propensity to break stuff? Its one thing to have voters disagreeing as to the value of certain absolute statistics; but its another to have them disagree over something that cant even be identified.

Catcher ERA.

Honestly, I don't really have a problem with people including the intangible, immeasurable, 'you had to be there' stuff. It is the Hall of Fame, so I think players doing things that are unique/entertaining/etc is part of it. (This was actually kind of Blyleven's problem, the form of his career didn't give him much of an impact). Fundamentally, for the Hall of Fame you have to be great at baseball and my problem comes in when the intangible stuff constitutes the entirety of their case. Jack Morris was ok-to-good, but pretty conclusively not great at baseball. Blyleven is the opposite. He was great, but it mostly ended up not mattering. (Like I said above, I think the fact that he spread it out was part of the problem. He had 5 years with a 140 ERA+...but only 2 of them were back-to-back, so people remembered him has a guy who had a fluke good year, rather than a great pitcher. He just did it 4 times).

[ivanvamp]

This is an interesting dichotomy. There are obvious leader-ish kind of things -- Koufax, Clemente -- that should be & have been recognized in some way separate from the HOF vote. But I think the stuff that ivanvamp is talking about is the more day-to-day stuff. The problem with that type of stuff is that not only it impossible to quantify, it is almost impossible to even identify.

Well, it's not hard to identify among those who are around such people. Leadership is a quality that's not that hard to spot, really. However - and here's the obvious sticking point with the HOF - the people who can identify leadership skills are teammates, coaches, managers, etc...that is, the people associated with the team on a daily basis. But they don't vote. The people that *do* vote for the HOF don't have that kind of access, and fans, even less than HOF voters.

[Alternate34]

Well, it's not hard to identify among those who are around such people. Leadership is a quality that's not that hard to spot, really. However - and here's the obvious sticking point with the HOF - the people who can identify leadership skills are teammates, coaches, managers, etc...that is, the people associated with the team on a daily basis. But they don't vote. The people that *do* vote for the HOF don't have that kind of access, and fans, even less than HOF voters.

I disagree with this. I think leadership is an ability than can be particularly hard to spot, especially in sports and not just for writers.

First, I think most people have a tendency to consider the best player on the team a leader or conversely, if the team loses, lacking in leadership qualities. Some guys, it can just smack you in the face. Other guys may demonstrate leadership but in more restrained ways.

Additionally, leadership takes way too many forms to really conclude who was an important leader. To go somewhat far afield, Vince Lombardi is probably consider a great leader by most people. However, there were guys who he pissed off on his team who might consider him lacking in leadership. To some degree, great leaders will instigate that anger from a guy to get his best performance, but the guy will not see that as great leadership.

Take Jeter. Many consider him an awesome leader. Does A-Rod? I don't know. Maybe some other stars who played with him don't either. I don't think that leadership is one of those things easily seen.

[joe dokes]

I disagree with this. I think leadership is an ability than can be particularly hard to spot, especially in sports and not just for writers.

First, I think most people have a tendency to consider the best player on the team a leader or conversely, if the team loses, lacking in leadership qualities. Some guys, it can just smack you in the face. Other guys may demonstrate leadership but in more restrained ways.

Additionally, leadership takes way too many forms to really conclude who was an important leader. To go somewhat far afield, Vince Lombardi is probably consider a great leader by most people. However, there were guys who he pissed off on his team who might consider him lacking in leadership. To some degree, great leaders will instigate that anger from a guy to get his best performance, but the guy will not see that as great leadership.

Take Jeter. Many consider him an awesome leader. Does A-Rod? I don't know. Maybe some other stars who played with him don't either. I don't think that leadership is one of those things easily seen.

In "Baseball is a Funny Game," Joe Garagiola distinguished between real 'leaders,' and phony 'holler guys.'

Well, it's not hard to identify among those who are around such people. Leadership is a quality that's not that hard to spot, really. However - and here's the obvious sticking point with the HOF - the people who can identify leadership skills are teammates, coaches, managers, etc...that is, the people associated with the team on a daily basis. But they don't vote. The people that *do* vote for the HOF don't have that kind of access, and fans, even less than HOF voters.

I think we agree that writers are unqualified. As to the others, I just dont know. I supect there are as many definitions of "leadership" among the ranks of players as there are players.