Mark, if there was widespread acknowledgment by the BBWAA of all the great statistical work that has been done to further our understanding of the game, and they then rejected it from time to time on the basis that it should not be the Hall of Stats, that would be one thing.

But the writers use stats to justify their cases, too. All the time. Just the wrong ones.

Also, the assumption that those who evidence players' Hall cases with newer stats care little for the actual stories sounds pretty presumptive to me. I think stats and stories go hand in hand in terms of enhancing our understanding of baseball's past.

Defense, adjusting for eras, quality of competition, integration, position, post-season play, intangibles? If you are approached by someone who claims to have unraveled these issues statistically—I strongly urge you to run.

Once you have decided to use Win Shares, or WARP, or JAWS, there is really no need for a lengthy explanation.

How many Hall of Famers should be on this great team? It is consistent with the purpose of the Hall of Fame, in my view, to honor baseball’s champions. ... If the guy who John McGraw thought was the best player on a four-time champion—if this is the worst guy in the place, how bad can it really be?

This is a great piece of analysis, but I think there is one thing left out. Why do you need to have anyone to vote at all if you can choose players based on WARP, wins shares or some other uber-stat?

Those who want the Hall of Fame to be the Hall of Statistically Superior Players should just create their own institution. Just understand that a lot of the people who play the game will simply ignore the honor of their selection. Because they recognize that all the statistics are really just very crude measures of the game they played.

Mr. Armour,
Well written and refreshing. I'm a huge proponent of building your own case with your words and actions vs. demeaning and tearing down others'. As a former collegiate player, a good (I think the best) litmus test when deciding between the tough nominees, is to put yourself in the dugout and say to yourself, if I was going to start a 162 game season, who would I want to be on my team, considering the total package, i.e. stats, hustle, attitude, tangibles and intangibles included, who do I want as a teammate? All the best. Shark

Sully: as to your first point, sure the writers use stats. In your opinion, they are the wrong ones, and in their opinion, yours are the wrong ones. On on it goes.

For the second, I do not make the assumpion you tar me with. I comment only about what I like to read, and how that relates to what people are writing. All analysts might be secretly squirreled away reveling in Bert Blyleven stories. If so, there secret is safe.

:-)

Mark, do you think writers take the time to understand the more advanced metrics?

Do half the people who read sites like this take the time to really understand the more advanced metrics?

My point to Mark is this:

I know what a HR is, know what an RBI is, know what batting average is, know what fielding percentage is, know what wins are and know what ERA is.

I wonder if much of the BBWAA could say the same of park effects, FRAA or FRAR, VORP or even how much a simple AVG/OBP/SLG line tells you.

This is a great article. Although I disagree with some of it, the point that stats can sometimes overwhelm the arguments is well taken.

At the same time, however, it's quite clear that there is little consistency or sense to much of the voting. Jim Rice is the best example. Yes, he was a very good player, but yes he wasn't very good for very long. You might be able to add some ancillary points for him, but where? The Sox won zero World Series with him.

Supporters throw out Tony Perez as a comparable. But Tony Perez was a key cog on the Big Red Machine. I can see people arguing that Perez's numbers are not so great, but to me, he was part of a dynasty, and that dynasty should be reflected in the Hall.

I think most SABR folks leave some room for the Perez's of the world, but if it means a Rice is allowed to use Perez for justification for his own admission, then they start to get angry.

For me, I would prefer there be some floor for performance at each position. If a guy has this level of performance, he's a shoe in. If he doesn't, it's time to look at WS rings, AS appearances, impact on the game (Roger Maris, for example), and so forth.

Stat heads may just want that floor and nothing else, but I disagree with that too.

Sully: I think you (as an analyst) are fighting two problems here, which are different but related.

1. Many people are not wired to understand advanced baseball metrics. This is simple biology. This does not mean these people are stupid, and it does not mean (IMO) that their voice is unimportant in this matter.

2. There are also many people, and I count myself among them, who understand advanced baseball metrics perfectly well but are simply believe that they can't tell the story well enough. I can understand, for example, that Jack Morris has a WARP of 92 (or whatever), realize exactly what that means, even buy into its accuracy [though I believe there are huge error bars in all of this stuff], ... yet still come to the conclusion that his Hall of Fame case is better than that number would suggest. Perhaps the fact that you could count on him for 240 innings every year has additional value. Perhaps 1991 Game 7 should count as 20 wins. Perhaps I believe that the 1980s was the best baseball (in terms of quality of play) ever, and that no starting pitchers born after 1947 in the Hall (but three relievers)--is a problem.

There are cases to be made like this for a lot of players. We all have to allow for personal biases. It is not a science. I, for one, am glad of that.

And of course Bert Blyleven is a grave omission.

Your second point is very well taken and I agree that the sort of anecdotal/peripheral evidence you cite for Morris is well worth considering (although I still can't distinguish him from Dennis Martinez).

Many people are not wired to understand advanced baseball metrics. This is simple biology.

I don't buy this. The metrics themselves are ancillary. You are telling me that an individual intelligent enough to be employed by widely circulated newspapers cannot grasp that not making outs is fundamental to scoring runs? Or that fielding percentage tells us very little? Or that failing to consider context (park effects, era, etc) when citing stats is inadequate. Or that wins often tell us as much about the run support the pitcher gets as it does about the pitcher himself?

And on and on and on...

That's always been the funny thing to me about "advanced" baseball principles. They're very, very logical. I played baseball until I was 21, was considered a heady, coach-on-the-field type and only after I stopped playing and picked up the NBJHBA did I feel I started to understand the game.

If you take the time to read the best work out there, it's really pretty simple.

I think its a little more complicated than that. First off, yes I do believe that there are smart people who don't think about baseball the way you do. Part of aptitude is what you are interested in. Its baseball, being a fan supposed to be fun.

I am one of those people for whom baseball became even more fun once James started writing his abstracts. But for many smart people, likely more people, reading even simple analysis is boring and irrelevant to the enjoyment of the game. If this was a college course, perhaps they could ace it. But they should not have to take the course in the first place. To say we understand the game "better" than they do... I can't go there.

So there are three questions.

1) Do you think the Hall of Fame should honor the best players ever to play?

2) Do you think that we have the means to adequately understand which players (with plenty of room for disagreement on the margins) have contributed the most to their teams' winning efforts (the object is to win, after all)?

3) Should the voters try and take the time to read "even simple analysis" even if it is boring to them?

I am not trying to impose my way of enjoying baseball on anybody. I just think HOF voters should make more of an effort to honor the best players, since that is what they are purporting to do.

I have to admit, although I quote WS, WARP, etc. from time to time, I like stats that can be tracked when watching and keeping score of games. Counting stats such as Times on Base, Total Bases, Outs, K, BB, GB, FB, etc. are all very straightforward, understandable, and, importantly, descriptive. The same goes for rate stats like AVG/OBP/SLG/OPS, ERA, K/9, K/BB, etc.

Without delving into the more complex derivative- or formula-based "great" stats, I strongly believe beat writers, columnists, editors, cartoonists, and other Hall of Fame voters would be well-served to concentrate on the aforementioned fundamental measurements of player productivity (especially when viewed in the context of era, league, home ballpark, and position) rather than relying primarily on the Triple Crown stats of AVG/HR/RBI (and hits at the exclusion of walks) or ERA/W/SO, as well as number of MVPs, Cy Young Awards, All-Star games, etc.

I defend those who used basic stats up through the 1970s and perhaps into the 1980s because, for the most part, *we* didn't know better. But with the advent of the computer, game logs, and play-by-play data, as well as the contributions of analysts like Bill James (and many others), *we* can - and should - ask more of the writers and voters than what we did for the first 50 years of the HOF voting.

Statistics are not separate from the game. The right ones simply help illuminate which players produced and which ones didn't. I believe one can enjoy watching and describing the game even more once they take the time to understand stats that are really no more complicated than what it must have felt like after Henry Chadwick introduced many of them back in the 1800s.

Great article. I try never to justify one player making the HOF on the basis of who is already there because, lets face it, so many old timers were chosen before we had records of everything or methods to analyze those records. Similarly, I try not to argue against a player except in context of a better eligible player deserves selection first (i.e. Blyleven is one of the best all time in K's, Shutouts, IP; Morris is not one of the best all time in anything; Blyleven gets in first).

For example, I feel that Dale Murphy deserves consideration ahead of Andre Dawson. He gets some of one of my pet bugaboos; Murphy was a minor league catcher which shortened his major league career (knees can only take so much) so his misuse and thus lessening of his quantity based stats was not his fault. Similar use of that prediction and its obverse (players who start catching later catch longer) would have predicted long careers for Mike Piazza and Bob Boone, and now do so for Russell Martin. But much of my impressions of Dale Murphy and Andre Dawson come from Vin Scully, either over the radio or on television. I'm not attributing anything negative to Scully, but maybe Irish Scully has a mild appreciation for a fine Irish name like Murphy. Since I'm not good enough to make skill judgments on my own, I rely on stats, especially the park and league adjusted stats, to help me decide.

To deny intangibles is to deny the greatness of players like Phil Rizutto and Ozzie Smith. I mean, based on stats, Smith doesn't deserve to be there. And yet I *always* fought to get Cardinals tickets when we split up our season seats because I wanted to see Ozzie. His last season, I had to spend that game in the hospital because my kid caught her hand caught in a door, and I *think* I was more upset about my kid than missing the game, but the lie detector might not agree with me.

I go to Dodger Stadium (and others) to see greatness, to see the best players in the world do something spectacular. If all baseball was to me is statistics, I wouldn't bother going to the games. You knew going to a Sandy Koufax or Fernando Valenzuela game was something special because the cars would be backed up all the way onto Sunset Blvd. approaching Dodger Stadium. So let the guys who see 150 games a year vote for the players that gave them a special tingle on their way into the stadium. I'm sure Rice has intangibles, and I'm *very* sure that those intangibles were felt in Boston far more than anywhere else. But lets keep on trying to make sure they vote for the players who earned it without the tingle like Raines and Blyleven as well as the intangible guys like Rice and Morris.

Basic reactions to the article:

1) Well-written, though I largely disagree with it.

2) Everybody who talks about baseball uses stats. Everyone. It's a statistical game. The argument is over which stats are useful/illuminating and which are not.

3) I do not think that "intangibles" should be completely ignored. There are things we cannot measure. But I do think that a HoF case built primarily on intangibles is weak. YMMV.

4) Jack Morris had good PS performances. He also had some clunkers. Hardly anyone discusses the clunkers, for some reason... A corollary (at least before the HGH thing) would be Andy Pettitte. Lots of my fellow Yankees fans talk Andy up as a great post-season pitcher. Yet if you look at his record, you see a mix of performances that range from excellent to terrible, and they average out to pretty good. I've enjoyed AP's career. But he's made out to be something he's not (in more ways than one, apparently). So it seems to be with Jack Morris.

5) The "relief pitcher" "7th place hitter" comment/argument is actually an interesting one. Flesh it out, because I think it may have merit. Many analysts believe that a good starter > a great reliever (and a decent starter > a good reliever, and so on). Jack Morris - good starter. Goose Gossage - great reliever. One is dubbed a deserving HoFer by many analysts, the other is dubbed a potential mistake.

That link to George Kelly actually goes to George Kell, another questionable HOF pick.

Cool article though.

For the record, this is the voting criteria for the Hall of Fame: "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

As to Sully's first question: Do you think the Hall of Fame should honor the best players ever to play?

Not really. I think the HOF should honor the players who did the best things. What does that mean? That's up to you.

Bill Mazeroski's HR. How much does this inform how great of a player he was? Very little--its just one hit. All modern analysis believes it to be irrelevent--the post-season does not count.

If I were asked to rank the Top 20 2B of all time, this HR would be more or less ignored. If I were asked to vote on the HOF, this HR would absolutely matter.

When some people read this argument they are apt to say, "What? So is Don Larsen a HOFer too?"

I said it matters, I did not say it carried the day. There is room for nuance in this conversation. Not all plate appearances are created equal, not all stages are the same size.

Once you open this can of worms, a can which deserves to be opened in my view, suddenly a little art has been mixed in with the science. Which is WONDERFUL, in my opinion.

Again, there are two separate issues:
1. I don't believe that analysis alone can tell you who has the best statistics, because of dozens of issues like peak-career, league and era strengths, and various other adjustments that are really just "estimates" at this point.
2. Even if you did have the perfect solution for (1), this does not (for me) encompass precisely what the HOF is supposed to be honoring.

For almost everyone (Willie Mays, So Taguchi) this does not matter. But the gray area is where all the debates are, and the gray area is at least 100 players deep, perhaps more.

I expect you (Sully) and I would parcel out this gray area in similar ways, but I don't believe that my way is in any way more valid than many other ways.

I'm afraid that my bright friend Mark has misinterpreted one of my views. He writes:

*******
My bright friend Rob Neyer uses Win Shares, but has a similarly strict standard, recently writing, "I believe that if a player is among the best dozen or so at his position, he belongs in the Hall of Fame; or, alternatively, that if he's better than half the players at his position already in the Hall, he belongs in the Hall of Fame." When considering that there are about 18 HOFers per position now, and that there are several non-inductees that Rob supports, he is implying that about 40% of the current members are unqualified.
*******

I'm implying no such thing, though I can understand how Mark might assume that I am. My point was that if a player meets one of those criteria he *clearly* belongs in the Hall of Fame. That doesn't mean that other guys don't have valid cases, and I don't think the percentage of non-deserving Hall of Famers is anything *like* 40 percent. My guess? 20-25 percent, at most.

Mark, if you would be so kind, can you just tell me your point? I ask this with humility, not snark.

Are you calling for more civility?

Would you like the Hall to be thought of more as a museum?

Help me out if you wouldn't mind.

For the record, this is the voting criteria for the Hall of Fame: "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

I always get a kick out of that description, particularly the part about "playing ability." When it comes to honoring a player *after* his career, I don't really care about his "ability" anymore and, instead, I only care about his "performance" or using one of the criteria established by the Hall, the "player's record."

But that is neither here nor there. The voters (both the BBWAA and the Vets Committees) have created the de facto standards, as James has so effectively pointed out, by virtue of who *they* have inducted into the Hall of Fame.

If "integrity, sportsmanship, and character" are such important criteria, why have certain players with questionable "integrity, sportsmanship, and character" been voted into the Hall and others haven't? Or, more relevant to today, why are some current (and future) candidates being scorned while others before them received a free pass, if you will?

If anything, it seems that these intangibles are more arguable than the stats. But the voters who resort to such intangibles like Rice's fear factor do so fully knowing that it can't be measured (although I might argue differently). As such, if it can't be measured, it follows that it can't be challenged. Ergo, if somebody makes such a claim, it becomes irrefutable in their minds.

More than anything, I'm just asking for consistency in the implementation of the criteria.

I wonder if much of the BBWAA could say the same of park effects

Do we really know anything about the "park effect" on an individual player? I don't think so. The folks that vaguely understood that Yankee stadium is an advantage for left handed power hitters are miles ahead of anyone who is applying the Yankee stadium "park effect" randomly to every player based on statistical analysis.

Do half the people who read sites like this take the time to really understand the more advanced metrics?

From reading people's comments I doubt that even the people who create some of these "advanced" metrics really understand them. Or even some of the old-fashioned ones.

For instance, people use innings pitched as a measurement of how much a player pitched rather than recognizing it as a measure of how many outs they were able to get.

not making outs is fundamental to scoring runs?

Its what you do that contributes to scoring runs that is fundamental to scoring runs. Sometimes making an out contributes more than not making an out.

This is similar to the exaggerated importance of getting on base that ignores the reality that how likely individual players are to score once on base, varies at least as widely as how likely they are to get on base. A walk is not the same as a hit, its not even the same as a walk by a different player.

If you take the time to read the best work out there, it's really pretty simple.

Only to people who fail to see, or choose to ignore, its complexity. In fact, that is the basic problem with a lot of statistical gurus, including Bill James. They have a simple understanding of both baseball and statistics and the result is simple answers to complex questions.

And that is reason enough for people to ignore a lot of the statistical analysis based on catchily named stats. They rarely actually measure what their catchy name implies.

Why am I getting a "the honorable minister from _____" House of Commons vibe when I read "My bright friend..." ?

For those not familiar, the honorable minister lead-in is generally accompanied by a snarky smile and followed by some skillful knifework.

Actually, Mark and I really are friends. While I certainly can't speak for him, I consider Mark one of the brightest people I know. Both of us, I think, were simply winking at each other.

Right, then. No knife fight. ;)

Nope. But I might short-sheet his futon mattress the next time he stays over.

Ooh, sleepovers. Now I'm getting an ARod-Jeter vibe...

Hey Ross, question for ya: here are the 2007 leaders in VORP, a "catchily named stat:"

1. Alex Rodriguez
2. Hanley Ramirez
3. Magglio Ordonez
4. David Ortiz
5. David Wright
6. Chipper Jones
7. Matt Holliday
8. Jorge Posada
9. Albert Pujols
10. Miguel Cabrera
11. Prince Fielder
12. Chase Utley
13. Carlos Pena
14. Curtis Granderson
15. Jimmy Rollins
16. Ichiro Suzuki
17. Vladimir Guerrero
18. Ryan Braun
19. Barry Bonds
20. Victor Martinez
21. Grady Sizemore
22. Ryan Howard
23. Derek Jeter
24. Aaron Rowand
25. Todd Helton
26. Carlos Beltran
27. Placido Polanco
28. Brian Roberts
29. Derrek Lee
30. Edgar Renteria

Bearing in mind that VORP is an offense-only stat, do you think that it fails to measure what its "catchy name implies?" In other words, is this a bad list of the top 30 offensive performances in the 2007 regular season?

I'm not wedded to VORP. I think it's solid, but imperfect, particularly because it doesn't say anything about defense, and its consideration of baserunning is, AFAIK, limited to steals/caught. But it seems to me that's a pretty good list, and probably a much, much better list than the BBWAA would concoct.

First off, I want to thank Rich for running my article. I wrote him a few days ago what I wanted to write, and he agreed to run it. I didn't expect most people here to agree with me, but I appreciate being able to speak out. I am much more drawn to write when I find myself at odds with the prevailing winds. I hope Rich lets me back. :-)

Next, Sully asks me what my point is. I tell you, there is nothing that makes a writer feel better than spending 2500 words on a subject, plus several long comments, and being asked to explain his point. :-( I am kidding. Sort of.

I had lots of points, but I will be brief.
1. There is too much snideness in HOF discussion, on both sides. I did not point out the sportswriter's snideness, because that is more or less common knowledge 'round these parts.
2. Analytical HOF debates generally include a lot of assumptions about what the purpose of the HOF, which is the cause for most of the disagreement, IMO.

Baseball writing has become a 12-month occupation. 40 years ago, baseball writers would write once a week in the winter, just to fill you in on who signed a contract or spoke at the Manchester Elks Club. With lots of year-round writers, and no games, the HOF debates (and the MVP debates, which have most of the same issues) take over for six weeks, and there really isn't enough to say on the subject. I see no solution.

The games can't get here soon enough. :-)

Mark, you say there's "too much snideness" in these discussions. But they're not discussions. A discussion is what happens when you and I talk about our kids, or where we're going to eat after a local SABR meeting. These are DEBATES, and while you might describe them as snide, I would describe them as (mostly) spirited. This is what people do when they debate things, whether it's sports or politics or the use of Freudian symbolism in "The Great Gatsby" (I made that up, as I don't have any idea if there's anything Freudian in "The Great Gatsby").

I'm not sure why I'm supposed to get along with Dan Shaughnessy, regarding this particular issue, when we're debating from completely different perspectives with completely different motivations. It's *going* to be contentious. And as near as I can tell, we're not hurting anybody.

Well, Rob, if they all wrote like Shaughnessy I would agree with you. But you know as well as I do that there are good smart sportswriters advocating for Jack Morris, for example, and I think some people on "this" side have a strong tendency to paint with too broad of a brush.

I see no difference between "sabermetricians don't think players are human beings" and "Jack Morris supporters don't understand how baseball games are won and lost" (which is actually much kinder than I have seen this point made).

Really? I have never written, "Jack Morris supporters don't understand how baseball games are won or lost." Can you show me someone who has? Five someones? Outside of message boards?

This criticism reminds me all those "Look at what the crazy bloggers are saying!" comments ... meanwhile, the guys being PAID to write and talk about politics and public policy -- Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews, etc. -- are either buffoons or just plain bat-shit crazy. I'm all for a rational, respectful debate (or if you prefer, discussion). But shouldn't we start at the top, with the guys who actually have, you know, audiences?

To reinforce Rob's point, my first reaction to the post was "who are these stat people he is talking about?"

I have a sharp tongue but try and always be sure to steer clear of ad hominems.

I also happen to like the smells of the ballpark, etc.

And funny you mention the political commenteriat, Rob.

The post smacked of David Broder-esque advocacy of bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake. Forget which side of the aisle the sound policy falls on.

Well put, Sully. "It doesn't matter who's right -- and maybe nobody's right, really! -- as long as we all get along."

No thank you, sir.

You know, I am not going to provide the examples you ask for. Obviously, you are all free to draw whatever conclusions you wish from that.

Apparently I am a minority of one on this. Carry on.

Bearing in mind that VORP is an offense-only stat, do you think that it fails to measure what its "catchy name implies?"

Yes. You can come up with a similar top 20 list using all sorts of offensive stats.

And you make the case that Aaron Rowand belongs on that list, but Torii Hunter doesn't. Given the contracts each just signed, it appears the baseball industry doesn't agree with you. I don't need VORP to know that Alex Rodriguez is more valuable than Nick Punto. So what exactly does VORP measure?

Bearing in mind that VORP is an offense-only stat

You mean keeping in mind that the "catchy name" doesn't really represent "Value" but simply one part of a player's value? That pretty much describes the problem. And we won't even discuss what a "replacement player" really is because it doesn't really matter - its basically a conceptual framework that has little or nothing to do with the actual number.

The fact that you can calculate a number doesn't guarantee it has meaning. You can add apples and oranges and divide by lemons and call it fruit salad.

In any disagreement, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

People who mostly look at numbers would be better served by learning more about the history of the game. Writers who only go to games and ignore "the new math" would be well served to at least understand what some of the new stats are trying to measure.

Mark's article is fun, I just can't get enough of this HOF debate and history stuff. Plus after BJ put down George Kelly, it only makes me want to learn more about Mr. Kelly.

Funny thing is, almost all of my analyst friends absolutely love the history of the game. Meanwhile, many writers I know are interested in the "new math" only when it serves their immediate purpose.

To me, that's a simple truth that Mark missed.

Actually Mark I really enjoyed the article. Last time I checked it was the Hall of FAME, not the the hall of the statistically best players of all time(those all those that meet this criteria should always be considered)
I couldn't agree more with Rich's point about the context in which many people were elected. I wasn't alive in the 50's and I think its wholly unfair to look back through statistical glasses and deem someone unworthy.
I agree with Neyer's point that the discussions are more spirited than spiteful...besides much better then people talking about basketball or god forbid, gridiron.
I think any piece that gets people talking is a good one, so well done.

I just want to say, nice job. Really. Mark, Rob and Rich.

I liked the column, liked the debate. The infite "Shades of gray" vibe is quite welcomed.

An interesting take. However, I do think Mark has mischaracterized an aspect of the JAWS project when he writes, "This process might suggest that Jay believes that half of the Hall of Fame is unqualified, or at least suspect."

Aside from the omission of the bottom of the barrel in figuring the JAWS benchmark at each position, the point of my system isn't that half of the Hall's members are unqualified, it's to identify the candidates on the ballot who raise the standards of the Hall because they surpass the benchmark at their position. The Halls rolls have been compromised by the admission of some dubious players, and while we can't undo what's done, we should focus on candidates who don't compromise the standards further instead of the ones who merely meet a minimum threshold.

For example, my system says that Jim Rice is about as good a candidate as Ralph Kiner, but that among HOF leftfielders, both would rank in the bottom tier among their positional peers. We're not going to kick Kiner out, but I don't think we should be jazzed up about Rice joining him, as it appears he will next year.

Furthermore, I've fully acknowledged from the outset of my project that there are certainly elements of players' Hall of Fame cases that JAWS can't capture (postseason performance, awards, league leadership, milestones, pioneering efforts, etc). Subjective arguments will always have a place in the discussion, but they shouldn't dominate it.

Rob wrote: "Funny thing is, almost all of my analyst friends absolutely love the history of the game. Meanwhile, many writers I know are interested in the "new math" only when it serves their immediate purpose. To me, that's a simple truth that Mark missed."

I didn't miss it, it just had nothing to do with my story. I am only commenting about you (the plural you, not the singular) write. Whether someone is interested in old stories is only interesting to me (for the purposes of this story) if they write about them.

I expect you have run across people with this odd view, but it ain't me.

it's to identify the candidates on the ballot who raise the standards of the Hall because they surpass the benchmark at their position.

I think one of the questions raised here was whether "their position" is a critical component of the discussion. Gossage or Morris? Why should Gossage get in the HOF because he was used at a position that usually went to much lesser pitchers?

It appears the idea is that there is no minimum defensive requirement except that they were goo enough for a manager to play them at a particular position. But it seems to me a player whose defense is well below average needs to more than make up for it with their bat.

Subjective arguments will always have a place in the discussion, but they shouldn't dominate it.

Why not? Are the subjective judgments really less reliable than a crude statistical analysis that can't capture the complexity of the game?

But Mark, I *do* write about the old stories. I've written whole books full of old stories, and my next book -- out this spring! -- is 100% old stories. You mentioned me in the piece (by the way, thanks) so you *seem* to have had me in mind.

Or is your point simply that we don't write about the old stories at the same time we're writing about a player's Hall of Fame credentials? If so, you're probably right, as I don't think Tim McCarver's bubble-blowing talents have much bearing on his Hall of Fame case...

I think one of the questions raised here was whether "their position" is a critical component of the discussion.

Yes, I believe position is an important part of the discussion. If nothing else it's an organizing principle that should help us identify a representative cross-section of players for a given time period and provide a means of historical comparison of apples to apples and catchers to catchers, and even relievers to relievers. All-Star teams don't consist entirely slugging first basemen and corner outfielders, so why should the Hall of Famers from that era over-represent such players?

Even if defensive skill isn't a mandatory asset for potential Hall of Famers at a given position, it's wholly relevant to incorporate defensive statistics because they account for things like, as you suggest, a player whose below-average defense requires some additional offensive input. Systems like Win Shares and WARP also do a good job of apportioning defensive responsibility and value fairly, such that we can have a basis of comparison between the slick-fielding shortstop and the lumbering first basemen.

Are the subjective judgments really less reliable than a crude statistical analysis that can't capture the complexity of the game?

I'd like to think JAWS rises above a description of "crude statistical analysis" given that it accounts for offense, defense and pitching in runs and wins, adjusting for park and league scoring levels, and that it takes into account both career and peak performance. It's still a tool, but my hope is that it's a useful one when it comes to sorting out Hall of Fame candidates.

Once you have decided to use Win Shares, or WARP, or JAWS, there is really no need for a lengthy explanation... The only way one can add to the conversation is to supply some sort of color or nuance—a description of performances in big games, quotes from opponents or managers, a great World Series catch, your own personal memories.

Well, jeez, I'd like to think that somewhere within the 10,000-odd words I spilled on JAWS this past six weeks contained some amount of nuance regarding the players under discussion, but I do heartily apologize for not being able to spit out the equivalent of "The Glory of Their Times" in that context.

Ross,

"Yes. You can come up with a similar top 20 list using all sorts of offensive stats."

Even if this was true, that doesn't make VORP a bad stat.

"And you make the case that Aaron Rowand belongs on that list, but Torii Hunter doesn't. Given the contracts each just signed, it appears the baseball industry doesn't agree with you."

First off, that's a VORP ranking, not a Rob-in-CT ranking. I just put it up as an example for discussion.

Just because Torii Hunter got a bigger contract doesn't make him a better player. A contract results not only from the player's ability (real or perceived) but the market at the time, the needs of the team, the skill of the agent, the desires of the player himself (see: Wakefield, Tim), and probably a few other things I'm not thinking of.

Torii Hunter ranked 45th in VORP in 2007, by the way.

Hunter hit .287 .334 .505. He stole 18 bases, but was caught 9 times.
Rowand hit .309 .374 .515. He stole 6 bases and was caught 3 times.

I do not know for sure if VORP considers park effects (yes, I admit it! I don't know everything under the hood!!), but I know Philly is considered a hitter's park. I don't recall what Minny's park effect is. Even if you adjust Rowand's numbers down a bit, he out-hit Hunter. I wouldn't just waive away 40 points of OBP.

Also, as we've both noted, VORP does indeed fail to incorporate defense, which is a big part of Hunter's game. Granted, the same is true of Rowand, since they are both CFers with good defensive reputations.

So a more accurate (less catchy) name would be "Offensive Value Over Replacement Player." Or maybe just "Offensive Value." It's made fairly clear, I think, that "replacement player" is a theoretical construct. There is reasoning behind it, but it is ultimately an arbitrary number, and I'm fine with that. This somehow makes VORP useless?

Again, I'm not holding it up as some perfect single-number answer to life, the universe and everything (that would be 42, of course). I'm merely asserting that it is a pretty good stat, and miles better than what many members of the BBWAA tend to use when discussing a player's ability.

I think it's already been noted well that ability is not the only component when evaluating a player for the HoF. While I think it should be the most important thing, I agree with many of the other posters that things like character, adversity, etc. should matter. It's a question of how much you think those things should matter.

One more thing on Hunter v. Rowand. The VORP ranking was for 2007 only. Teams presumably (hopefully!!) look at more than just the last year's results when evaluating a player. I don't recall, but maybe Hunter was actually the better hitter over a 3-year period, and Rowand just had one flukey good year in '07. In that case, assuming for a moment that their defense is roughly even (not necessarily true), paying Hunter more might be perfectly reasonable, and also not at odds with the 2007 VORP ranking of 30th for Rowand and 45th for Hunter.

Why not? Are the subjective judgments really less reliable than a crude statistical analysis that can't capture the complexity of the game?

Yes! In fact, they most certainly are. Subjective judgements tell us Jeter is one of the best shortstops in baseball. "Crude" statistical analysis tells us he is actually quite possibly the worst.

Also, for what its worth, using contracts to figure out who the baseball industry thinks is better is ridiculous. Gil Meche is going to make $11 million next year, and Josh Beckett is going to make $10 million.

This site is called baseball ANALYSTS. What do you hope to get out of your visits here?

Jay Jaffe wrote: "Well, jeez, I'd like to think that somewhere within the 10,000-odd words I spilled on JAWS this past six weeks contained some amount of nuance regarding the players under discussion, but I do heartily apologize for not being able to spit out the equivalent of "The Glory of Their Times" in that context."

I am guessing that Jay actually does not heartily apologize, and he has no reason to. On the chance that this comment was directed at me, I assure you that I do not wish you to do anything at all of the sort. I hope you continue to write what you wish, and since you do it so very well. I have quoted (i.e., "ripped off") JAWS on more than one occasion.

All I hope is that the *readers*, and yes I am looking at *you* over there, seek out other parts to this story, perhaps even become *writers* of these stories yourself, and realize that these debates often do a poor job (IMO) of illuminating the game. No one is under any obligation to tell the *whole* story, just as no one should be under any illusions that they are telling anything more than a part of it, and that people they disagree are as well.

that doesn't make VORP a bad stat.

It just means it has little if any meaning. If you added Total Bases to RBI's and divided by games played and called it Power Quotient you would probably end up with a list of some of the game's best power hitters. That doesn't mean the number has any real meaning.

I just put it up as an example for discussion.

You put that list up in defense of VORP, so if your claim is VORP is a measure of a player's "value" than you need to defend it as such.

I do not know for sure if VORP considers park effects (yes, I admit it! I don't know everything under the hood!!)

Which was sort of my point. Most people who use VORP don't know what it means. That is really its usefulness - it hides any weaknesses inside a black box. How many people even know that it only includes offense?

This somehow makes VORP useless?

What does your list show it is useful for? Here is a list of the 10 pitchers with Greatest Value Above Replacement:

Sabathia-CLE
Webb-ARI
Harang-CIN
Blanton-OAK
Halladay-TOR
Hudson-ATL
Lackey-LAA
Peavy-SDP
Haren-OAK
Santana-MIN

Again, I'm not holding it up as some perfect single-number answer to life, the universe and everything

Then what are you holding it up as? It does not seem to have any other use - especially since you admit you don't really know what it means "under the hood". If you look at the "uber-stats" they really all claim to measure the same thing - the comprehensive value of a player.

All-Star teams don't consist entirely slugging first basemen and corner outfielders, so why should the Hall of Famers from that era over-represent such players?

Because those players arguably contributed more to their team's success than people who play other positions. As was pointed out above, not everyone bats at the top of the order, should we judge someone as a HOF candidate because they were the best number eight hitter in the league? Should middle relievers have their own category for the HOF? Apples to apples.

Systems like Win Shares and WARP also do a good job of apportioning defensive responsibility and value fairly,

You claim they apportion it "fairly" and yet even among professional baseball people there is a wide disagreement about the relative value of offense, pitching and defense. Essentially this is the same claim to have discovered that the answer is 42.

Even if defensive