Aren't the filters a beautiful thing? Imagine being #### Allen, waking up in the morning, and saying, "Hey, I wonder if some guy is taking a lunch break to write a blog about me today." Then when he types his name, he gets zero hits, because his name has been inexplicably changed to ####. Good thing Mr Allen won't find this. With the way this series has gone so far, he may not like what IJWMFTT has to say.
Somewhere along the way, it was made a standard that positions up the middle were for the glove, and the corners were for power. Of course, guys like Ripken, Alex Rodriguez, Nomar Garciaparra, Andruw Jones, Jeff Kent, Mike Piazza, et al, changed that mold. It's a bit strange too. After all, the league has grown by a third in the last thirty years, yet clubs still demand (and find) multi-tool players.
The HOF argument series has taken on three shortstops. The goal was to examine the player within his area, and from a broader perspective. In other words, if there isn't domination (which there isn't - otherwise there's no argument) is the whole of his career enough to be enshrined alongside those who were dominant? With Richie Allen, we take on our first corner infielder.
Third base is a strange position to grade. As a corner infielder, a HOF third baseman should have some degree of power. So too should a first baseman. Third basemen can be forgiven for not exceeding the power threshold (traditionally 400 HR) if their gloves are above par (see Robinson, Brooks). First base is less forgiving. It is considered an easier position, thus it is a threshold position. You don't have to get to 500, but you may want to make a run at it.
So what's a guy to do when he plays concurrent with the greatest fielding third baseman of all time, and is replaced by the greatest hitting third baseman of all time? Move to first! Let's do the top 100 test, and see if any thresholds are surpassed:
HR: 351-->317 10.7
2B: 320-->438 (27)
3B: 79-->118 (33.1)
H: 1848--> 2428 (23.9)
BB: 894-->1018 (12.2)
BA: .292-->.309 (5.6)
OB: .378-->.389 (2.9)
SB: 133-->352 (62.3)
Other than Maury Wills' stolen bases, Allen is the first to break through on the top 100 leaderboard in a category. His career BB/K ratio is 894/1556. Yikes! If Allen could have worked more walks, he might have the OBP. People will argue that the relationship between slugging and on-base is inverse. To slug, one must swing. Sometimes, they miss. It's how you can strikeout 100 plus times for ten years of your career, yet still hit .292.
I argue that HOF corner position players can do both. This list includes Ruth, Aaron, Bonds, and Manny Ramirez et al. We'll see exhibit B in four years with Sammy Sosa. Exhibit A, you may know, is Mark McGwire.
The baseballreference.com tests do put Allen closer than any player we have examined thus far. His black ink (league leader) score is 27. The average HOF score? 27! His grey ink (top tens) score is 159. The average HOFer is 144. The HOF standards score is lower than the average hall of famer, because of the thresholds noted in the analysis above. Alan Trammell's Hall Monitor score is actually higher than Allen's because of positional adjustments and the quality of his teams. Once again, we have a guy better than some who are in the Hall of Fame, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you too are a Hall of Famer.
So throngs of people have been sending messages and letters asking, "what is your avatar?" It does have that candlestick effect. Unfocus your eyes, and you may see a fat bottom girl dancing. Focus them, and you'll see this man
The case of Alan Trammell is a tricky one. Was the whole greater than the sum of its parts? Or were the parts good enough to stand alone? As double play combos go, no two names role off the tongue like Trammell and Whitaker. And that's Trammell's problem. It's Trammell and Whitaker. In football, Aikman to Irvin gets you to Canton. In baseball, it simply allows a town to wax poetically of the sweet music you made together.
For example, baseballreference.com has some good indicators that allow you to compare players. You can see a player's numbers (with a positional adjustment) relative to his ten closest peers. The flaw is that it contains active players. As it stands, Trammell and Jeter are in the same ten player range. Jeter is likely Hall bound, but mainly because people are extrapolating his career over another four or five years. By that time, Trammell will be a speck in the rear view mirror.
Another metric they have is similarity by age. It takes the player that the selected player was most similar to in each year of his career. Twenty-two year old Alan Trammell was most like twenty-two year old Edgar Renteria. Edgar's name continues to emerge during Trammell's twenties. Aged thirty-one through thirty-seven, who is Trammell's counterpart? You might have known it. It was Lou Whitaker.
It keeps coming back to Sweet Lou. Was it unfair for the individuals involved? Or was it good for them to have such a solid player on the other side of the second base bag (i.e. do the parts look better when the whole is greater than their sum?) Just to fill everyone in, Whitaker may have been Roberto Alomar before Roberto Alomar was Roberto Alomar. He hit 244 HR, which prior to Jeff Kent, puts him in the top five percent of all second basemen. In fact, he's two behind the AL record held by Joe Gordon. Whitaker even has three gold gloves. And to show you why I put only a small amount of stock in gold gloves, Whitaker failed to win in 1991 when the gap between his fielding percentage and league average was highest.
Whoa there! Did you see that? Even this article about Alan Trammell turned into a piece on Trammell and Whitaker. Let's get back on track with my top 100 test:
HR: 185 (160 behind the position's all-time leader)
BB: 850-->1018 (16.6)
2B: 412-->438 (6)
3B: 55-->118 (56)
Hits: 2365--> 2428 (2.6)
BA: .285--> .309 (7.8)
OBP: .352--> .389 (9.6)
SB: 236--> 352 (33)
If not for an injury in 1992, Trammell gets into the top 100 in hits and maybe doubles. In fact, the subsequent decline phase kept him from being a .290 hitter with decent raw numbers at the shortstop position. Only once in his career (an by .1 percent at that) did Trammell field at a percentage below league average, winning four gold gloves.
More analysis can be done by peeking at the "grey ink" test. This test monitors the number of top tens a player had in certain categories. It rewards value over the long haul over a short period of dominance (i.e. it shows how Trammell was better than Cecil Fielder). Trammell scores a 48 where the average HOFer scores a 144. There are a few players in the Hall who are belwo this average and closer to Trammell.
That said, there is a Hall Monitor that compares numbers against those in the HOF. This shows the likelihood of someone making it into the Hall based upon those who have received their pass. This measure accounts for position. Trammell scores a 118.5, and the threshhold for "likely" HOFer is 100.
So based upon the "behavior" of the BBWAA, it would seem that Trammell should have been voted in by now; however, the raw scores indicate he is a little short of worthiness (I hate using that word, since he has 185 more HR than me, but hey...). It's a conundrum for sure. But here's the saving grace - managing. If the Cubs win it all, Trammell will likely get another gig. If he wins a World Series as a manager, he will have a borderline HOF playing career, a World Series MVP, and a World Series win as manager. Sound like a anyone you know? A former catcher maybe? A former catcher turned manager of the 1996, 98, 99, 00 champions? Anyone? Bueller?
*Quick note: I think it's agreed that Joe Torre IS getting in quite soon.
Our old buddy was on the four letter during Sunday's broadcast (as per usual) of the Diamondbacks/Dodgers game. I told you the drum breats were getting louder. The following phrase was used to hail Wills' candidacy: "He changed the game." Now let me reiterate: Of the people ahead of Wills on the all-time stolen base list, nine played their last game before Wills played his first. Three were contemporaries, and one of those isn't HOF worthy, so not all base stealers of the 60s and 70s are automatically Hall worthy. Six are modern, and only two of them are Hall worthy. In other words "Wills did something pretty well (don't forget SB %) that people did before, during, and after his tenure.
That's not exactly changing the game.
Also, on the list of the top 100 base stealers, 59 played before Wills. 41 were contemporaries or more modern players. So, changed for who exactly? It seems like Wills was above average at a fading skill. Of the modern players in the top 100, Rickey Henderson, Ozzie Smith, Barry Bonds, Luis Aparicio, Paul Molitor, Craig Biggio, and Rod Carew are hall worthy (either in or soon to be). Most on this list have exceeded a Hall threshhold in another category. In other words, there isn't a correlation between base stealing and Hall worthiness.
Babe Ruth changed the game. More players have exceeded the magical 500 HR threshhold. A decade from now, Ruth will still be no lower than 5th all-time (accounting for A-Rod and Pujols). With the stolen base making a comeback, Wills may still be in the top thirty a decade from now. But the offensive skills of players like Brian Roberts and Carl Crawford trump Wills. Are we to put them in the Hall? If you want a player similar to Wills, look at a current Dodger, and answer this: Would you put Juan Pierre in the Hall of Fame?
IJWMFTT radars went berzerk last week when the folks on WTEM's John Thompson show emphatically declared that Maury Wills belonged in the Hall of Fame. Of course, Maury agreed. I didn't want to go as far as to say that Maury Povich had a stronger case, but I did say that he was slightly better than Bert Campaneris - but had the advantage of wearing a Dodger uniform. I also said that every city has a Wills. It was then that I made my biggest mistake. I invoked the name of Dave Concepcion.
I have been told by many that the HOF is incomplete without Dave Concepcion. I knew that I invoked his name, I would have to do part deux. And if I did part deux, I'm likely in this for the long haul. This may become a series. Lucky you!?!
Dave Concepcion was a shortstop before it became an offensive position. His peak years (74-82) started eight years before Ripken's rookie season. His decline years (83-88) were in the midst of Ripken's peak years. That said, Ozzie Smith and Omar Vizquel (oh Lord this will be at least a three part series now) excelled defensively in Cal's era. And they did/will receive the nod.
In other words, defensive specialists CAN get in, BUT it's pretty clear that one must excel at something offensively. Remember, The Wizard was in the top 100 of a few offensive categories. Wills had the quantity of stolen bases, but should be discounted for his percentage. Wills was nowhere near the top 100 in other categories. Where does Concepcion stack up in my top 100 criteria (Again I'll ignore HR for his era, and see the explanation for below analysis in the Wills entry)?
Hits: 2428-->2326 (4.3)
Doubles: 438-->389 (11.2)
Triples: 48-->118 (59.4)
Walks: 736-->1018 (22.3)
BA: .267-->.309 (13.6)
OBP: .322-->.389 (17.3)
Steals/SB%: 321/74.6--> 352 (10)
Concepcion, in seven more seasons than Wills, doesn't crack the top 100 in any of these categories. To that end, Wills would appear to be a stronger candidate. Of course, the baseball HOF is different than the football HOF. The football HOF recognizes a certain degree of dominance. It's why Jim Brown could get in with seasons to spare. It's why many think Terrell Davis will get in with a six season career. The baseball HOF is about threshholds. Dale Murphy is in the Hall of Fame if Philadelphia's fences were a foot shorter. As it stands, writers can't get over the fact that he is two homers shy of 400.
Back on track, Concepcion had seven more seasons to exceed these threshholds. It's quite trange that he did not. If Concepcion hangs it up after the same number of years as Wills, he finishes with a 100 OPS+. Now that's average, but in that era, average is pretty good for a shortstop. Concepcion would pass "the Jim Brown test."
It's his decline phase that's amazing. He lost it so much, so fast. In 1981 and 1982, he is a silver slugger with a 116 and 97 OPS+ respectively. In 1983, his OPS+ is 61. Perhaps Concepcion's Big Red Machine teammates trumpet his cause so much because they played with him in his peak (when he was an above average hitting shortstop), and thought he'd be a shoe-in for 2500 hits, a .330 OBP, and 400 steals. They didn't see his decline years after Foster, Bench, Rose, and Morgan had left. People will say you shouldn't hold that against him, but there is a laundry list of players who got over the hump in their decline years. And that hump is a bit higher at other positions.
**Quick note on fielding. I think everyone knows he was a great fielder with range factor and fielding percentage above league average. He won five gold gloves (more than Wills, but at the same time, it's an elected award). Baseball history is littered with above average fielders, and it would take a "plus play" every series to truly be distinguishable as a fielder (Ozzie Smith).
When IJWMFTT first started, the idea was to discuss the things being tossed around in sports talk circles, and critique the work of the hosts. Critquing callers is a waste of time. If they were any good, they'd host the show. Even so, the talent soemtimes goes astray.
Every now and then, that would be the case for WFAN's "Mike and the Mad Dog." Even so, the duo had built so much equity in the sports talk arena, that transgressions like the one in the Sean Taylor case were minimized. For the most part, though, Mike Francesa and Chris Russo had their finger on the pulse of the city.
The duo could take calls for four hours on a pitching change. They could also do multiple segments on the Rangers or Islanders. It's darned near impossible to hear anything about a particular town's hockey team, let alone a town's back-up hockey team. The Knicks and "As Isiah Turns" were great fodder as well.
On Friday, it was announced that "Mike and The Mad Dog" was to become "Mike..." Apparently, the two weren't as buddy/buddy as one would think. Imagine being in a studio for four plus hours, in a job that requires playing off one another's dialogue, and not really liking the other person. If they were wiring speakers or laying carpet, it would be one thing. Did the job get done? But this is something done for public consumption. Pretty amazing that the partnership lasted 19 years.
Russo would start every show with an obnoxious, yet somehow welcoming, "Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY!" When he went solo, he didn't much care for going on and on wih his own spiel. He would take calls. He would argue. He'd be the guy at the bar drinking Red Bull and Vodka, and the others would eat it up.
Francesa was the straight man of sorts. He's friendly with sports heavyweights like Bill Parcells. He's a Yankees fan (whereas Russo has maintained his Giants allegiance). He's also the guy who tries to be the smartest guy in the room.
Nonetheless, WFAN will survive. But the duo that spawned pairings like Clayton/Salisbury, Pollin/Czaban, and even WFAN's own Joe/Evan, has not. Now the question is, will less be more on WFAN? Or will New York area subscriptions to satellite radio go up? Or heck, will San Francisco land itself a top radio personality?
This won't get personal, but a well-known Washington based tele-sports-journalist once referred to today's target as "the aptly named" Peter Schmuck. To be frank, using that quote serves no purpose here, other than as a means for a semi-humorous opening line. That said, we here at IJWMFTT like to keep it professional. If not for ourselves, then for God, Jesus, and Mr McMahon (+5 internets to you if you know the obscure reference, or maybe it's -5).
Mr Schmuck cites the Yankees acquisition of Xavier Nady and Damaso Marte as evidence of a conspiracy to keep Barry Bonds out of Major League Baseball. Unfortunately, the column was little more than a "dot dot dot" column written in Larry King or the occasional IJWMFTT format. I'd love to know why THIS trade is the smoking gun. Was it because it's THE YANKEES? Or was it because we looked at our handy dandy list of "baseball players we know" and did not see Xavier Nady or Damaso Marte on it?
Here is what Barry Lamar contributed in 2007 in terms of batting runs above replacement and fielding runs above replacement (source: Baseball Prospectus):
BRAR 55 + FRAR (-5) = Run contribution of 50
Here is what Xavier Nady currently contributes:
BRAR 39 + FRAR 12 = Run contribution of 51
Clealry, the fielding component makes Nady an even player to Bonds. But what can we say about Barry's age, and applying the 20% collapse rate? To be fair, Barry Bonds has been a vintage wine, somehow getting better with age in terms of OBP. A 10% regression would be fair. This puts Barry's run contribution at 45.
But what about the DH? It's a fair point on the surface, but drilling down some will make you realize that Peter Schmuck has chosen the wrong enemy. Johnny Damon occupies the DH slot with Giambi essentially pressed into first base duties and Hideki Matsui on the DL. Barry could take on DH duties. The problem is versatility. If Nady goes down, Damon and/or Matsui are better to have for defensive purposes. Matsui's run contributions are in the high thirties to low forties. Damon is in the low thirties. I really couldn't argue with Bonds coming in at DH if Nady stays healthy. So, no, Xavier Nady is not the one keeping Barry Bonds out of baseball.
Oh, and I didn't even get to the value added from acquiring Marte and dropping LaTroy Hawkins. As the cavemen said, do a little homework next time before writing any old thing that fills your Saturday ten paragraph quota.
In honor of Estelle Getty, picture it, 2008, the studios of ESPN980 in Rockville, Maryland. The star player of the local baseball team is on the phone doing an interview. Said team is 38-62 with nary a chance to see fourth place. Said star makes a little more than league minimum. Good idea or bad idea to put the star player in this position:
"So what's your favorite road trip?"
It was amazing to listen to Ryan Zimmerman gush about the city of San Diego. He also seems to like Arizona. San Francisco isn't so bad either. In other words, "I like the cities where the weather is nice and their third baseman are currently OPSing .766, .810, and .727."
Okay so Reynolds probably isn't going anywhere in Arizona. But Misters Kouzmanoff and Castillo are a peg below Zimmerman. Zimmerman is arbitration eligible next season. The Nats have him locked up, and teams really can't wait three years for a third baseman to come aboard. That said, the message is clear: "I'm on every MASN commercial promoting this team. You gave an out of shape Dmitri Young $10 million over two years. WilyMo Pena gets at least $2 million next year. John Patterson got $212,000 to go away, and we're going to play the Ryan Howard game? How about we play the Ryan Braun game?"
If the Nationals want to show that they care about this organization, and aren't in this for the easy infusions of money that come from being a new team, and then having a new field, this needs to get done. There is no chance of a top flight free agent, who is mildly concerned about winning, will come to DC if they can't demonstrate the desire to lock up their stars. The good news is, you know you've arrived as a baseball team when every blog on Earth is lighting you up.
So we can blame the late Jerome Holtzman for setting back the statistical revolution in sports. Holtzman created the save formula in 1959, which was finally adopted in 1969. To his credit, there was a relief that needed to be recognized. But the net effects of the save are specialization, misuse of the pitching staff in close games, and worst of all, THE HOLD.
However, what we have found is that nobody is willing to tweak any formula created prior to the Bowie Kuhn era. Look at the comments in the history of this bandwidth, Birk's space, and especially Crashburn Alley. Anything new is really newFANGLED. Anything used over these many decades has to be right. After all, why keep using it? New stuff is "made up." Yet somehow batting average must have come from God to Grantland Rice's ears.
Thankfully, USA Today's Paul White gets it. The attempts to introduce new information to the baseball landscape are geared toward determining an individual's true value. RBI and pitching wins in baseball are dependent upon how good your team is. The resultant stats aren't valuable to determine how a team should be tweaked, or if a team is looking to poach talent. This doesn't stop at baseball. Hockey's plus/minus ratio is best served to compare teammates, but does little to compare players on different teams. Then there's quarterback rating. Hey how about rebounds? There are no rebounds to be made if the team shoots well.
Let's share some silly save stories. I'll start. Wes Littleton of the Rangers earned a save on August 22, 2007. The final score was 30-3. The three effective innings clause was added after Holtzman's formula.
Some random sports musings while I finish my next statistical endeavor:
*So which member of the Tampa Bay Lightning gets nailed with a taser this season? 3-1 Lecavlier, 2-5 Melrose. 1-1 I can't name another Lightning player/coach, unless St Louis is still there. Hmmmm. Confused? http://www.tampabay.com/sports/baseball/rays/arti cle453776.ece AND http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/25788760/ By the way, wouldn't it be awesome if someone from THE LIGHTNING were to get the tased. Stay out of them clubs guys.
*Speaking of Lightning, it was rumored that Oklahoma City was going with the Thunder nickname. Thunder is the name for an indoor lacrosse team. Mr Bennett apparently likes names that end in S. If you like S so much, you had a nickname that began and ended with an S. Given current events, are the Slot Machines taken? Machine - that sounds menacing.
*Greg Norman's near miss at The British Open gave us wonderous tales of romance between he and his new wife, Chris Evert. It's a charmed life for all involved. Nope not a single thing to complain about for anyone at all. Non-famous-athletes are people too ya know.
*Jason Taylor is a Redskin. Dan Snyder owns the Redskins. Dan Snyder (in a manner of speaking) owns Tom Cruise's future movies. Tom Cruise, meet Jason Taylor.
