Does winning matter for Hall of Fame Induction (part 4)?
(see part 1, part 2 and part 3 in previous posts)
Below are the current and recently retired players with predicted probabilities over .5, as well as a few other players of interest. Players who have been elected are denoted “*” and players who are eligible are denoted “+”.
The real surprises here are the players at the end of the list, several of whom might be first-ballot hall of famers were there no steroids controversy. There are also several players who are generally considered "borderline" candidates who score particularly well. I’m not sure exactly what to make of the seemingly poor performance of the models in addressing the performance of recent players.
The other interesting result is the difference in the two specifications for players who most their entire career with good teams (e.g. Jeter, Manny, Chipper) or poor teams (e.g. Dawson, Sosa, Sandberg – why are they all Cubs?). I think this definitely suggests that winning makes a difference, though I think model 3 might overstate its impact.
Next time I’ll look at how changes in productivity or team performance might have affected players’ hall of fame chances. Due to other projects, this may not happen until sometime next week.
|Prob. Of Induction|
|Name||endyr||position||Model 1||Model 3|