You are viewing the chat in desktop mode. Click here to switch to mobile view.
X
Jay Jaffe FanGraphs Chat - 1/7/22
powered byJotCast
Prev Page View Full Chat Next Page
AvatarJay Jaffe
2:43
Yes.
Guest
2:43
Bobby Grich modern era ballot candidate?
AvatarJay Jaffe
2:44
I keep hoping he'll get on the ballot, but so far it hasn't happened. That Whitaker did bodes well for Grich, but he's got a ways to go to get elected
Clu Heywood
2:45
I might have missed it, but can you cliff note what S-Jaws is?
AvatarJay Jaffe
2:46
I introduced it in the Jim Kaat and Billy Pierce  Golden Days profiles but gave a fuller airing in the Buehrle/Hudson/Pettitte profile https://blogs.fangraphs.com/jaws-and-the-2022-hall-of-fame-ballot-mark...
From that piece:

The idea behind S-JAWS is to reduce the skewing caused by the impact of 19th century and Deadball-era pitchers, some of whom topped 400, 500, or even 600 innings in a season on multiple occasions. The way I’ve chosen to do this is by prorating the peak-component credit for any heavy-workload season to a maximum of 250 innings. Why 250? Mainly because it’s a level that the current BBWAA candidates rarely reached, and only one active pitcher (Justin Verlander) has, albeit by a single inning a decade ago. Given the current trends in the game regarding starting pitcher usage, five or 10 years from now, looking at candidates on a 200- or 225-inning basis might make more sense, but I think this is a reasonable place to start the adjustments.
2:47
As to how this plays out, Cy Young’s 453-inning 1892 season, which produced 11.2 pitching WAR and -0.9 hitting WAR, thus counts for about 5.7 WAR towards his peak score; he still gets credit for the full 10.3 WAR for his career total. Old Hoss Radbourn’s record-setting 678.2-inning 1884 season, the one in which he notched 59 or 60 wins (depending upon the source), scales from 19.2 pitching WAR and 0.3 hitting WAR to a total of 7.2 WAR towards his peak score, but again, his original 19.5 WAR is still part of his career total.
Gigi NYC
2:47
Will the season start on time, in your current estimation?
AvatarJay Jaffe
2:48
I'm much less optimistic than I was a month ago. I'd have said 75% chance before, now I'm at about 25%.
Tigers Fan
2:49
If you were a betting man which of these current superstars would you bet on having a HOF career/getting elected to the HOF...Ohtani, Tatis Jr., Soto, Acuna Jr., Franco, Guerrero Jr.?
AvatarJay Jaffe
2:54
They've all got a shot and would be worth putting at least some money on. Early arrivals are a major part of getting to Cooperstown, but obviously injuries can get in the way. Vladito's path to DH probably makes him the least likely of those guys, though he was MUCH better than expected at first base last year, and if that can hold, it will help his cause.
Owen
2:54
My mom (who grew up near Detroit) has beat the drum for Bill Freehan for years - what would his odds be like on a VC vote?
AvatarJay Jaffe
2:55
It's frustrated me that he's never even gotten on a ballot. But there's suddenly a lot more room and I'd hope that between that and a chance to reevaluate him in light of his passing last year he gets on the next one.
david
2:55
are hall of fame voters putting too much weight on post season performance? It seems that way to me given how much better ortiz (29th in 1B Jaws) is doing then Helton (15th in 1B Jaws). Not to take away from Ortiz playoff performance but how do we factor in the fact that as a red sox he got way more opportunities then Helton did as a rockie?
AvatarJay Jaffe
2:59
Hall of Fame voters have historically put a LOT of emphasis on postseason stuff; it helps to explain why choices that otherwise look like clinkers are there, particularly near the bottom of the JAWS rankings. With the postseason being larger than ever, there's an argument that it should still be significant, but you're right that opportunity plays a significant part there. The way I tend to look at it in my evaluations is that a player can gain significant extra credit by that route but that I can't hold it against him for not getting many chances or not succeeding in a very limited number of opportunities.
Nobody said the world was a fair place.
Ben
2:59
In light of all the allegations and the total collapse in his vote, is Omar Vizquel's candidacy permanently doomed?
AvatarJay Jaffe
2:59
Quite possibly yes.
A Jolly Good Oberkfellow
2:59
How do you feel about the suggestion that HOF plaques just tell the truth about PEDs-users as a way to attest to the complexity of an era we don’t know all the facts about?
AvatarJay Jaffe
3:01
you are never in a million years going to get a Bonds or Clemens to stand there while his plaque is read and it says "alleged to have used PEDs" or whatever, though I'd bet A-Rod, who has been very candid about the mistakes he made, would probably be a different story.
Clu Heywood
3:01
What metrics do you use for managerial HOF candidates?
AvatarJay Jaffe
3:02
There's no managerial JAWS, so to speak. I played around with something while writing the Dusty Baker piece (https://blogs.fangraphs.com/dusty-baker-job-security-and-the-hall-of-f...) but nothing I'm ready to share.
3:03
I do think that Games Above .500 is an important number to look at because it captures some element of longevity and success
though it's also true that if you're a great manager, you'll retain your job through the lean years that might hold that figure down. True for Bochy, who will be the next manager elected I think.
Scott
3:03
Does Kenny Lofton have any hope on the committee with Bonds, et all stealing votes?
AvatarJay Jaffe
3:04
I don't see him as having a chance immediately if Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, Bochy, and McGriff are all crowding that ballot.
Robert
3:05
Us White Sox fans are not happy with Dick Allen and Early Winn not getting in. I guess the New York contingent only thinks we can get one in at a time but Yankees can be put in by the handful.
AvatarJay Jaffe
3:06
Um, Early Wynn was elected in 1972. Took him four tries, which was unusual for a 300-game winner, but he's got a plaque.
Robert
3:06
I am sorry. I meant Billy Pierce.
AvatarJay Jaffe
3:07
ha, fair enough. I simply don't think Pierce is anything but a longshot-type of candidate. Interesting career but there are literally dozens of pitchers I'd elect before him
Justin B.
3:07
Do you think the impact of greenies by players in the 50s and 60s is comparable to the impact of modern PEDs? I've seen passing references over the years to some big names having benefited from greenies, but I haven't done much reading on the subject. Are there any definitive treatments on use of greenies and their impact?
AvatarJay Jaffe
3:10
The shape of the impact is different but the usage was supposedly pretty widespread. They may not have helped anybody break home run records but I'll bet there are a lot of guys who reached 100 RBIs because they were able to stay in the lineup instead of taking days off when their bodies told them they should (or when they otherwise would have been too hung over)
Scott
3:13
I've always felt that Jim Fregosi didn't get enough HOF consideration because of the Ryan trade. Have you ever done a full review of him?
AvatarJay Jaffe
3:14
No. I had a bit on Fregosi in my October 29 chat (https://blogs.fangraphs.com/jay-jaffe-fangraphs-chat-10-29-21/) that ended up on the cutting room floor for the Baker piece. Last April Dan Szymborski did a ZiPS Time Warp piece that was interesting https://blogs.fangraphs.com/zips-time-warp-jim-fregosi/
Dusty
3:15
I would argue we aren't looking at postseason stats enough.  Frankly they should put Wagner and Nathan on the wrong side of the line, given you already have to stretch to give them  extra credit for their less than 1000 innings at least being high leverage.  When it really mattered most, both performed horrendously.
AvatarJay Jaffe
3:19
I don't see how anybody could look at a 10-12 inning body of postseason work and think that was a fair evaluation. As I noted in Nathan, four of his six trips to the postseason featured series where he threw one inning or fewer. Obviously, none of that helps his case but I wouldn't use that rule out a candidate. I'd probably close the browser tab on a voter's ballot explainer if I came across it, too.
Mike Trout
3:20
Are you in favor of the committees? Sometimes they right wrongs but it's weird to have players who failed the stricter voting process get in because their friends are voting.
AvatarJay Jaffe
3:21
I think they need an overhaul. Double them in size and make anybody who played/managed/GMed with that player recuse himself from the vote; some candidates might have 29 voting on them, others 31, but to me that makes more sense.
Marshall
3:21
Do you have a heuristic for a “HOF-caliber” season? For example, I like to look at how many years a guy had above 4-5 WAR, and 10 or more such seasons feels HOF worthy
AvatarJay Jaffe
3:23
it's not a hard and fast rule but if I'm skimming a player's page, I look for 5-WAR seasons and go from there.
Connecting…