Skip to content

Science proves you're not a Hall of Famer

Jul 27, 2009, 10:26 PM EDT

 
christopher-lloyd.jpgSomebody has been stealing your research money, and this is what they came up with:

The Wall Street Journal reports that a pair of professors have invented a formula to predict whether a player will be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

Shockingly, it’s the players with awesome stats who will get in. But if a player’s stats are good, but not great, his chances aren’t as good. Stunned? Me, too.

Using a radial bias function network, a sort of neural net, Dr. Smith and Dr. Downey were able to identify statistical commonalities among Hall of Famers. As it turns out, hits, home runs and on-base plus slugging percentages are what count for hitters, while wins, saves, earned run average and winning percentage are what count for pitchers. All-Star Game appearances count for both, being especially valuable for hitters as they serve as a useful proxy for position.

The story claims that the formula is accurate 98.7 percent of the time. I’m guessing it missed out on guys who face some extenuating circumstances like, say Pete Rose. (Although Rose might yet get in).

I’m also guessing that the steroids issue could throw a massive wrench into things.

The whole thing is quite silly. But I guess it’s a better way to spend your time than, say, attending a Mets press conference.

  1. Willian Hathcock - Dec 23, 2009 at 3:25 AM

    This is an astonishing entry. Thank you very much for the supreme post provided! I was looking for this entry for a long time, but I wasn’t able to find a dependable source.

  2. Horace Greenbush - Jan 9, 2010 at 10:54 AM

    Intimately, the article is in reality the best on this laudable topic. I harmonise with your conclusions and will eagerly look forward to your future updates. Saying thanks will not just be adequate, for the fantasti c clarity in your writing. I will directly grab your rss feed to stay abreast of any updates. Fabulous work and much success in your business efforts!

  3. Seth Kubly - Jan 13, 2010 at 1:08 AM

    I don’t know if I agree with this article. I mean there are a lot of ways to look at this, don’t you think? What makes one opinion so much more valid than any other?

  4. Jadwiga Mackie - Jan 16, 2010 at 6:01 AM

    I wanted to thank you for this excellent read!! I definitely loved every little bit of it. I have you bookmarked your site to check out the latest stuff you post.

  5. Music downloads - Jan 16, 2010 at 10:29 AM

    Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love learning more on this topic. If possible, as you gain expertise, would you mind updating your blog with more information? It is extremely helpful for me.

  6. Mothercare - Jan 16, 2010 at 10:38 AM

    A thoughtful insight and ideas I will use on my blog. You’ve obviously spent some time on this. Well done!

  7. MP3s - Feb 25, 2010 at 4:42 PM

    Aw, this was a really quality post. In theory I’d like to write like this too – taking time and real effort to make a good article… but what can I say… I procrastinate alot and never seem to get something done.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Don't count out the Yankees just yet
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. R. Castillo (4762)
  2. D. Ortiz (2699)
  3. M. Cuddyer (2244)
  4. Y. Molina (2167)
  5. Y. Darvish (2062)
  1. J. Benoit (1960)
  2. J. Baez (1959)
  3. S. Castro (1897)
  4. H. Ramirez (1886)
  5. J. Soler (1886)