Does Wally Berger belong in the Hall of Fame?

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by struggles_mightily

Awesome argument.

I wasn't arguing, I was answering. You were arguing, and now you've sucked me into it.

Originally Posted by struggles_mightily

A) You're both ignoring the most obvious factor (base 10) and my larger point (arbitrary limits are bad).

B) I wasn't aware that my reasoning was "every significant number in baseball lore is a multiple of ten." My reasoning is a) 10 years is only used for this particular measure because of base 10 and b) any arbitrary limit is inherently unsound.

C) Also, in dismissing part a) of this reasoning, it's probably not a great idea to bring up two numbers that are 10x.5 and 10x1.5.

D) Yep, the lone example of multiples of ten being cared about in baseball lore. Absolutely no-one considers significant the numbers 100 for team wins or losses in a season or RBIs for a player season; 200 and 300 for wins in a pitcher's career; 300, 400 and 500 homers for a player's career; or 2,000 and 3,000 hits for a player's career. No-one talks about 20-20-20 guys or values 20 wins for a pitcher's season.

E) Anyway, the main issue here is not the size of the limit. It's that arbitrary restrictions are bad. Eight years, nine years, ten years, eleven years, whatever. There is no reason to set these reductive cut-off points. The more weird laws one creates in order to determine HoF entry, the more frequently it's possible to just say "well, them's the rules!" without thinking about stuff.

F) Edit: Not that it really matters, but the number of strikes in an at-bat and outs in an inning are really base-4 systems, since there are four possible values in the radix (0, 1, 2, 3).

A) I wasn't ignoring base 10; I was tearing it down. And arbitrary limits aren't bad in and of themselves. They set benchmarks that make the honor worth more.

B) Who was talking about baseball lore?

C) It's probably also not a great idea to bring up numbers that are 10x .9 amd 10x 1.1.

D) Once again, where did this 'baseball lore' stuff come from? Is a 20-20-20 season a criterion for entry into the hall? Is 300, 400 or 500 homers? You're trying to cloud the issue by bringing in extraneous stuff and hoping I'll be confused into thinking it's relevant. (Not to say I didn't do the same thing; the difference is that I'm not falling for it.)

E) I covered most of this in A). There's a very good reason to set reductive cut-offs, that being to limit the number of players who get in. Arbitrary limits do need to be reviewed occasionaly to see if they're still relevant. I'd say that the present day increase in number of players with long careers would justify an increase to a twelve year minimum.

Your arguement sounds suspiciously similar to that of defense attorneys who ask juries to acquit due to their client's unfortunate childhood. Irrelevant. If they committed the crime, they should do the time.

Which isn't to say the hall shouldn't take into account relative superiority vs. era, but theera must be of substantial length, else with your redutio ad absurdium you'll end up electing players because they made Player of the Week.

F) Now you're being silly. By that arguement, if Western Civilization used base eight the arbitrary requirement to enter the hall would still be 10 years, since 10 in base eight is 8 in base ten.

Personally, I think the heat is making you cranky, and you're looking for someone to keep you awake until you cool off.

[struggles_mightily]

I wasn't arguing, I was answering. You were arguing, and now you've sucked me into it.

You explicitly quoted my post; disagreed with it in a surly and dismissive fashion; and described my comments as "dumb." That's fine. But it is also definitely constitutive of "arguing."

I wasn't ignoring base 10; I was tearing it down. And arbitrary limits aren't bad in and of themselves. They set benchmarks that make the honor worth more.

Arbitrary limits, I think, are usually worse than investigations which seek to utilise all of the available data and (say) to exclude as few people as possible a priori from receiving an award.

Anyway, we aren't talking about arbitrary limits "in and of themselves", we're talking about a particular arbitrary limit used for a specific purpose. In order to accept this limit as correct, one has to believe that a ten season career is proof of "longevity", and is somehow qualitatively (rather than just quantitatively) different to a nine season career (which cannot prove "longevity"). One has to believe, basically, that something magical (or at least very significant) occurs once a player takes the field for that tenth season. I see no reason why that should be so.

The negative effect of this particular limit is that it removes from contention for baseball's highest award players who may nevertheless have been dominant for long periods of time. That, I would say, is a bad thing.

Who was talking about baseball lore?

You were, kind of. "Baseball is a game of threes", and all that. If you prefer, I could have referred to "the numerical aspects of baseball." You know what I mean.

It's probably also not a great idea to bring up numbers that are 10x .9 amd 10x 1.1.

It's neither great nor terrible. It's ultimately irrelevant since my contention (as my last post said) was not that "all numbers regarded as significant in baseball are multiples of ten."

Once again, where did this 'baseball lore' stuff come from? Is a 20-20-20 season a criterion for entry into the hall? Is 300, 400 or 500 homers?

I can't believe that you're genuinely confused as to the point I was making. You argued that baseball is "a game of threes." I showed that many numbers taken to be significant in baseball are multiples of ten. This is all a side issue, in any case.

You're trying to cloud the issue by bringing in extraneous stuff and hoping I'll be confused into thinking it's relevant. (Not to say I didn't do the same thing; the difference is that I'm not falling for it.)

You argued that the 'decimality' of the ten-year rule is not significant because baseball makes regular use of numbers not divisible by ten. I argued that it also frequently uses multiples of ten for assigning landmarks. Whatever. As long as we can agree that base-10 numerical systems place an extra importance upon multiples of ten, we've established as much as is necessary for me to make my point.

There's a very good reason to set reductive cut-offs, that being to limit the number of players who get in.

Setting arbitrary limits is neither the only nor the best way to do this. A better place to start would be removing players like Travis Jackson, Phil Rizzuto and Rube Marquard. Another way might be to dismantle the Veterans Committee. Those two things also have the advantage of, unlike the ten-year rule, not potentially excluding deserving players.

Arbitrary limits do need to be reviewed occasionaly to see if they're still relevant.

Do you think that extensive studies were carried out before the ten-year rule was instituted? Or do you think that, maybe, it just sort of sounds right and is a nice round number? I'd be genuinely interested in any data you have re: the proportion of Major Leaguers who have particular career lengths.

Your arguement sounds suspiciously similar to that of defense attorneys who ask juries to acquit due to their client's unfortunate childhood. Irrelevant. If they committed the crime, they should do the time.

Yes.... that's... exactly what this discussion about election to the Baseball Hall of Fame sounds like. (Incidentally, your posts sound like the arguments of a prosecution lawyer at a trial I once attended regarding accusations of vote rigging during Selly Oak ward council elections. Either that, or Boz Scaggs' third album played backwards over a Bunsen burner).

Which isn't to say the hall shouldn't take into account relative superiority vs. era, but theera must be of substantial length, else with your redutio ad absurdium you'll end up electing players because they made Player of the Week.

Your knowledge of what a "reductio ad absurdum" is matches your ability to spell it: i.e. lacking heavily in both areas. In any case, I've always always always argued that talent and longevity need both to be considered. Look at stuff:

"I can't see why on Earth using an arbitrary and restrictive rule is more useful than just judging each player simultaneously upon longevity and talent."

"Obviously there will be more difficult calls -- what about a guy who dominates for three or four years...?"

"Surely the idea is to measure every guy's longevity against his ability and make case-by-case decisions that way?"

Yep, that's what I'm all about -- electing guys who made Player of the Week one time. "Measur[ing] every guy's longevity against his ability"... and then just saying "nah, screw it" and voting for anyone who has a 1 AB, 1 HR career line because, hey, nice slugging percentage.

By that arguement, if Western Civilization used base eight the arbitrary requirement to enter the hall would still be 10 years, since 10 in base eight is 8 in base ten.

That's... not what I was saying. But, as I've said a couple of times, this stuff is not really that relevant. (More relevant than stuff about insanity pleas, or whatever. But only just.)

Personally, I think the heat is making you cranky, and you're looking for someone to keep you awake until you cool off.

Personally, I think I like discussing baseball and think I think you're doing a bad job of it at present. Personally, I also think that making snide toilet-paper-thin inferences about the "real motivations" of your internet co-interlocutors is kind of a smarmy and unnecessary thing to do.

If you have stuff to say about baseball, I'd be glad to listen & reply. If you shut up about court cases and the temperature of my bedroom, I promise to leave off your spelling and refusal to read my arguments properly.

EDIT: Simple, targeted question that should get us back on track: why ten years?

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by struggles_mightily

You explicitly quoted my post; disagreed with it in a surly and dismissive fashion; and described my comments as "dumb." That's fine. But it is also definitely constitutive of "arguing."

{I don't know how to break up the quotes as you do, so I'll reply in brackets.

The bit you were quoting there was in response to my reply of "No." 'No' is not an arguement.}

Arbitrary limits, I think, are usually worse than investigations which seek to utilise all of the available data and (say) to exclude as few people as possible a priori from receiving an award.

{And why is trying to exclude as few people as possible a priori a good thing?}

The negative effect of this particular limit is that it removes from contention for baseball's highest award players who may nevertheless have been dominant for long periods of time. That, I would say, is a bad thing.

{I think you'll need to define what 'a long period of time' is. Six years isn't; twenty years is; ten years — maybe, depending upon other factors. Ten years IS a definition, though it's pretty obviously one you don't agree with.}

If you prefer, I could have referred to "the numerical aspects of baseball." You know what I mean.

{Apparently you don't know what I mean. I'll cover that below.}

It's neither great nor terrible. It's ultimately irrelevant since my contention (as my last post said) was not that "all numbers regarded as significant in baseball are multiples of ten."

{Your contention was that ten was chosen because we use the decimal system. Since this seems to be the only (or one of a vanishingly few) instance in which ten is OFFICIALY used in baseball, I don't see how you can conclude that its appearance here is anything other than a statistical fluke. (Use enough numbers for enough things, and if those numbers are chosen randomly 10% of them will be factors of ten.)}

I can't believe that you're genuinely confused as to the point I was making. You argued that baseball is "a game of threes." I showed that many numbers taken to be significant in baseball are multiples of ten. This is all a side issue, in any case.

{This is the point I was refering down to from two above. I can't believe that you don't see the difference between numbers written into the rules of the game (or the hall) and numbers used by fans to discuss the game. I do agree that it's a side issue.}

As long as we can agree that base-10 numerical systems place an extra importance upon multiples of ten, we've established as much as is necessary for me to make my point.

{We can agree on that, but I still see it as making my point. American football is a game which could be fairly argued is heavily dependent upon the decimal system. Baseball is not. Ice hockey and basketball are also games with practically no dependence upon the decimal system, but notice is still taken by fans of how many games it takes a player to reach 50 goals, or how many triple-double games a player accumulates over a career. Those observations have nothing to do with their respective games; they speak only about the people who observe and comment on the games.}

Setting arbitrary limits is neither the only nor the best way to do this. A better place to start would be removing players like Travis Jackson, Phil Rizzuto and Rube Marquard. Another way might be to dismantle the Veterans Committee. Those two things also have the advantage of, unlike the ten-year rule, not potentially excluding deserving players.

{I never said it was the only way. It simply sets the bar that must be jumped so that every Tom, Dick and Harry doesn't get on the ballot. What system would you use for removal? (Note that I'm not arguing against your choices for removal.) Some years ago the Veterans' Committee was restructured, and since then it's been much more selective (frequently accused now of being overly selective) in adding members to the hall, so while abolishment would've been attractive twenty years ago, reform has made it unneccessary.}

Do you think that extensive studies were carried out before the ten-year rule was instituted? Or do you think that, maybe, it just sort of sounds right and is a nice round number? I'd be genuinely interested in any data you have re: the proportion of Major Leaguers who have particular career lengths.

{I have no idea whether studies were conducted before the ten year rule was instituted. I can see no particular reason to believe that the five years wait to get on the ballot, the fifteen years of primary eligibility or whatever the length of wait between the end of primary and the beginning of secondary eligibility are not arbitrary, but ten years' minimum service has SOME logic to justify it, so I can't dismiss it as arbitrary without evidence to support its arbitrariness. The coincidence of the decimal system does not constitute evidence. If all four of those periods were ten years I could see strength in your position.

As to your last point, according to "Men At Work" by George F. Will, one fourth of ballplayers make it to ten years' service, which is a nice, round number. (I can't find the page now, but his specific reference was that half of all players don't make it to their third season, but half of those who do make it that far make it to ten. Note that he wrote this in 1989, so it may or may not have relevance in the period the hall requirement was being established.) Since research was done to establish minimum qualifications for plate appearances for batting title and innings pitched for E.R.A. title, it's at least as possible that the ten year requirement was calculated as it is that it was arbitrary, which was my point.}

Your knowledge of what a "reductio ad absurdum" is matches your ability to spell it: i.e. lacking heavily in both areas. In any case, I've always always always argued that talent and longevity need both to be considered.

{You have me on the misspelling of 'absurdum'. 'Reducto' in place of 'reductio' was a typo. And since I've also always argued that both talent and longevity need to be considered, I'm wondering why we're arguing. I'm finding it amusing, but I've been admonished not to ascribe motivation to you.}

Yep, that's what I'm all about -- electing guys who made Player of the Week one time. "Measur[ing] every guy's longevity against his ability"... and then just saying "nah, screw it" and voting for anyone who has a 1 AB, 1 HR career line because, hey, nice slugging percentage.

{That's the reductio in absurdum, similar to your example of a player who hits a million homers in one season. Funny, you didn't think your own example was a ludicrous one to put forward….}

EDIT: Simple, targeted question that should get us back on track: why ten years?

I don't know. It could be arbitrary, or it could be calculated. Either way, some minimum needs to be in effect. If not ten years, suggest a number that would work better.

[damonrusst]

Great discussion. Looks like the people want him in. And because I can't download and try OOTPX for at least another few hours I'm going to try to keep it going just to take my mind off the pain of not being able to play.

Curtis, if Berger had the same numbers, awards, place on all time lists etc. but played for ten years instead of 8.5, would he deserve to get in?

[Curtis]

Would his VORP put him in the top 1%? If so, then probably yes, though not on the first ballot (which might start another discussion…).

[damonrusst]

Originally Posted by Curtis

Would his VORP put him in the top 1%? If so, then probably yes, though not on the first ballot (which might start another discussion…).

Only Lou Gehrig and Jimmy Foxx have a higher VORP than Berger. Also Berger had one season he didn't play that they did because of that weird thing that happens in OOTP sometimes where no team can afford the top players.

[Curtis]

What year did your league start?

[damonrusst]

Originally Posted by Curtis

What year did your league start?

league started in 1929, Berger debuted that year. Sim started measuring VORP that year so this is pretty accurate to how he compared to other players during his career.

[punchdrunk]

Why don't you set this up as an event in your league history. Role play (if that is the right term to use in this case) as the HOF committee calling a special session to make a ruling on this case. The poll currently is running 70/30 in favor of induction. Why not set up a vote using a random number generator that gives him a 70% chance of being inducted and then "roll the dice"....

You can always then look back and remember the day that either a)the committee made a "notable exception" and allowed a deserving guy to get the nod, or b)the day that "Wally got screwed" by the committee. Either way your league has an event that will always be remembered and adds to the flavor and color of your history.

And then in the future when this is discussed by fans and the old argument is revisited (either way the vote goes...) the old-timers can always sit back and tell the young know-it-alls "yeah, but you never saw Wally play, I was there, I saw Wally play and you don't know what the hell you are talking about!"

[damonrusst]

Thanks again for all the input, everyone. Realizing that only two players beat him in VORP over the same span clinched it for me and I put him in. So thanks, Curtis for raising the question.

[PhillieFever]

Originally Posted by Kelric

The real Hall of Fame has a rule that a player must play ten or more seasons to be eligible. His numbers over that time show that he would most likely have been a Hall of Famer. The question is whether or not you want to have a minimum number of seasons. I like the ten year rule, so I would vote no. Without the ten year rule, yes.

I've had a change of heart on this one,when you first asked if he was HOF worthy,I voted a resounding yes,but after giving it some thought,I've come to the conclusion that there's something to be said for sustaining greatness over a 10 year period,I think the HOF has the right idea here,he's out.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by damonrusst

league started in 1929, Berger debuted that year. Sim started measuring VORP that year so this is pretty accurate to how he compared to other players during his career.

Originally Posted by PhillieFever

I've had a change of heart on this one,when you first asked if he was HOF worthy,I voted a resounding yes,but after giving it some thought,I've come to the conclusion that there's something to be said for sustaining greatness over a 10 year period,I think the HOF has the right idea here,he's out.

The decision has now been made, but damonrusst's reply made me change my mind, too. I didn't realize the league was so new when this discussion started, and knowing that now, my decision would be:

The Hall doesn't accept its first member until the league is thirty years old. By that time there would hopefully be enough history to be able to have a little perspective.

He doesn't get in on a vote of the baseball writers, due to not having enough time in to qualify.

Thirty years after he retires, he does get inducted as a 'pioneer of the game' by the much-maligned Veterans' Committee.

Originally Posted by punchdrunk

Why don't you set this up as an event in your league history. Role play (if that is the right term to use in this case) as the HOF committee calling a special session to make a ruling on this case. The poll currently is running 70/30 in favor of induction. Why not set up a vote using a random number generator that gives him a 70% chance of being inducted and then "roll the dice"....

You can always then look back and remember the day that either a)the committee made a "notable exception" and allowed a deserving guy to get the nod, or b)the day that "Wally got screwed" by the committee. Either way your league has an event that will always be remembered and adds to the flavor and color of your history.

And then in the future when this is discussed by fans and the old argument is revisited (either way the vote goes...) the old-timers can always sit back and tell the young know-it-alls "yeah, but you never saw Wally play, I was there, I saw Wally play and you don't know what the hell you are talking about!"

Best response of the thread.

[damonrusst]

"The decision has now been made, but damonrusst's reply made me change my mind, too. I didn't realize the league was so new when this discussion started, and knowing that now, my decision would be:

The Hall doesn't accept its first member until the league is thirty years old. By that time there would hopefully be enough history to be able to have a little perspective.

He doesn't get in on a vote of the baseball writers, due to not having enough time in to qualify.

Thirty years after he retires, he does get inducted as a 'pioneer of the game' by the much-maligned Veterans' Committee."

I hear what you're saying here but even though I started the sim in 1929, he's still up against the previous however many years of history back to the dawn of baseball time. And he's still #6 in HR etc. VORP is the only stat that's only measured for the ten years the league existed that just so happened to correspond to the ten years of his career.