Preview of new utilities

[Jake]

I voted against Kuramochi and I will also vote against Reyes. I don't think one season is Hall worthy, founders wing or not. And Kuramochi's season was much much more impressive than Reyes' as well.

[liquidcrash]

Kuromochi didn't make it in. I thought only Kellum actually got voted into the Hall.

Kurmochi also had his great year at age 38. Reyes was 33 when he was tearing up the league.

[Andrew]

Kuromochi didn't make it in. I thought only Kellum actually got voted into the Hall.

That's correct. Kuramochi received enough votes to stay on the ballot but not enough to get in.

[Andrew]

Kuromochi didn't make it in. I thought only Kellum actually got voted into the Hall.

Kurmochi also had his great year at age 38. Reyes was 33 when he was tearing up the league.

Kuramochi also started 36 games with almost 300 innings. Reyes only played 123 games in 1978.

[Pat]

I actually miscalculated his eligibility and thought it was next year.

It's funny, Pat (and others) was/were so against Reyes because he had only one great season but was/were all up on the Kuramochi bandwagon.

It's funny that the only reason you think it's funny is because Reyes played for you. If he played for any other team, you wouldn't give a Gremades.

The season that Kuramochi had in 1978 will never, ever, be replicated in the BLB. And he did it at 36 years old.

Reyes had a nice 3/4 of a season, but we have seen better.

[Clay]

Nominate him.

Which reminds me; isn't it time for hall nominations now? I'm not sure who is eligible that desrves consideration.

We'll start it once we fire back up.

[Clay]

For someone who asked... the definition of HOF Standards:


This test gives a score of 50 for an average Hall of Famer, with 100 as the max (note Babe Ruth is over 100 due to my simplistic addition of his pitching and batting values), though mine are lower due to some difference in positional adjustments that I'll explain below. It is used to measure the overall quality of a player's career as opposed to singular brilliance (peak value).
Also, I require a minimum of 20 points in this metric before the value is displayed for a player. Anything below that is meaningless.
This can be found in James's book on p. 174-176. All values are for career marks, and I've required 1000 at bats or 500 IP for the rate stats to kick in.

• Batting Statistics
• One point for each 150 hits above 1500, limit 10.
• One point for each .005 of batting average above .275, limit 9
• One point for batting over .300
• One point for each 100 runs over 900, limit 8.
• One point for scoring more than .500 runs per game.
• One point for scoring more than .644 runs per game.
• One point for each 100 rbi's over 800, limit 8.
• One point for driving in more than .500 runs per game.
• One point for driving in more than .600 runs per game.
• One point for each .025 of slugging percentage above .300, limit 10
• One point for each .010 of on-base percentage above .300, limit 10
• One point for each 200 home runs.
• One point if home runs are more than 10% of hits.
• One point if home runs are more than 20% of hits.
• One point for each 200 extra base hits over 300, limit 5.
• One point for each 200 walks over 300, limit 5.
• One point for each 100 stolen bases, limit 5.
• James's version: Defensive value: 20 points for catcher, 16 - shortstop, 14 - second base, 13 - third base, 12 - center fielder, 6 - right fielder, 3 - left fielder, 1 - first baseman, 0 - designated hitter
• My version: Defensive value: same as that computed for similarity scores. On a 0-20 range.

• Pitching Statistics
• One point for each 10 wins over 100, limit 25.
• One point for each 20 games over .500, limit 10.
• For each of the following a minimum of 500 innings is required before these points are added.
  • One point for each .013 of winning percentage above .500, limit 15.
  • One point for each .20 of ERA below 4.00, limit 10.
  • One point for each 200 strikeouts over 1000, limit 10.
  • One point for each .30 of BB/9IP below 4.00, limit 10.
  • One point for each .30 of H/9IP below 10.00, limit 10.
• One point for each 1000 innings above 1000, limit 5.
• One point for each 100 complete games above 200, limit 5. Changed from James's slightly
• One point for each 30 shutouts, limit 5. Changed from James's slightly

Note that this system excludes relievers as there are no set standards for them.

[Clay]

If this is the formula that is in play, I think it tells an interesting story about out league. I think if you look at the players who are in that 34-38 area and above are guys who at least have laid a foundation of a potential Hall of Fame career depending on how the rest of their run goes. In most cases, if they fell off the map now, it would make sense that they'd never make the Hall. On the flip side, the guys who are already at or over that 50 mark... people like Corrigan and Lumar... I think it would be fair to say no matter how these last few seasons go for them, they will at least be legitimately considered for enshrinement.

Nice stat. Lots of gray area because you really need a 8-10 year career before it really starts meaning anything. I like it though.

[Andrew]

Yep, it definitely gives another tool to use. An interesting question though. As of today, who would be legit HOFers (not founders wing) if they never played another inning?

[Jistic]

If this is the formula that is in play, I think it tells an interesting story about out league. I think if you look at the players who are in that 34-38 area and above are guys who at least have laid a foundation of a potential Hall of Fame career depending on how the rest of their run goes. In most cases, if they fell off the map now, it would make sense that they'd never make the Hall. On the flip side, the guys who are already at or over that 50 mark... people like Corrigan and Lumar... I think it would be fair to say no matter how these last few seasons go for them, they will at least be legitimately considered for enshrinement.

Nice stat. Lots of gray area because you really need a 8-10 year career before it really starts meaning anything. I like it though.

Which again Hoover at a 31 when his career got cut short was I think 32 years old. I'm still on the Hoover thing. He's gonna be my Pete Rose w/out the gambling.

[Clay]

Yep, it definitely gives another tool to use. An interesting question though. As of today, who would be legit HOFers (not founders wing) if they never played another inning?

I think Corrigan has to be in. Even if he never won another game, his 191 means 19.1 wins a season. Add in his Championships and I think he's in regardless.

I think you make a strong case for Lumar... a tick below .300/.400. .935 career OPS. 300+ HR. 1000+ RBI. Solid D.

After those two, I think you start getting into a 2nd tier that has people like the Maine and WC Pitchers who were so good early and continue to shine. Keppel. Maybe people like Joe Sierra. Closers like Cabezas, Cleary and Simmonds.

I think the no-brainer list may only be Corrigan and Lumar right now.

[Jistic]

Corrigan should also get the Pale Ale named after him.

[Riverman]

I think Corrigan has to be in. Even if he never won another game, his 191 means 19.1 wins a season. Add in his Championships and I think he's in regardless.

I think you make a strong case for Lumar... a tick below .300/.400. .935 career OPS. 300+ HR. 1000+ RBI. Solid D.

After those two, I think you start getting into a 2nd tier that has people like the Maine and WC Pitchers who were so good early and continue to shine. Keppel. Maybe people like Joe Sierra. Closers like Cabezas, Cleary and Simmonds.

I think the no-brainer list may only be Corrigan and Lumar right now.

It is hard for me to see how Keppel would not be on that no-brainer list if Lamar is.

[Clay]

Who would be the MLB equivalent of Eric Cafferty?

Bounced around to 4 or 5 different teams. 1 All-Star game. Career Leader in Walks. Career Leader in Wild Pitches. But just a total workhorse. Right there near the top of the list in Games Started, IP, etc... Doesn't really get hurt. I kind of see him as a junk baller. Is there a comparision?

[Jake]

Somewhat to my surprise Frank Rancourt already has 29 HOF standards. At his age and after missing half the year last year, I think he has an outside shot at 50.

Has to be one of the more underrated guys in the league.