[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by travrosty

eventually you have to do something on offense as a hof 2nd baseman and mazeroski didnt.

Apparently, you really don't.

Originally Posted by travrosty

All you have to do to realize that maz got in because of his one homerun is to take it away. if he didnt hit that one homerun to win the world series, but instead hit one in another world series game where the outcome was already decided, would he be in? Very obviously not.

I love it when pure speculation is posited as fact.

Jim Kaat might have had a lot of Gold Gloves. But remember a starting pitcher only plays every fourth or fifth game. A position player plays every day. And a second baseman is going to have infinitely more defensive chances than a pitcher. Think I'm kidding? Jim Kaat played 25 years in the bigs to Mazeroski's 17. Kaat appeared in 898 games, Mazeroski 2,094. Look at the putouts and assist the two compiled in their careers: Kaat got 262 putouts and 744 assists, an average of 10.5 put outs per season, and 30.2 assists per season. Mazeroski totaled 4,974 put outs and 6,685 assists, an average of 292.6 put outs per season, and 393.2 assists per season. Defense is a small part of a pitcher's game. Defense is a huge part of a position player's game. It can certainly help to be a good defensive pitcher, but a pitcher's main job is to get batters out by strikeout, by ground ball or fly ball to their defense. Jim Kaat is clearly not a Hall of Fame player. Kaat is a perfect example of a good pitcher who compiled impressive career stats simply because of how long he played. He led the league in wins once. Never in strikeouts, ERA, ERA +, WHIP, or shutouts. Yes, he won 283 games, and struck out 2,461 batters. But he pitched 4,530 innings. That's 4.9 strikeouts per 9 IP. And those 283 wins? He started 625 games. Of the pitchers who have started 600 games or more since 1900, only Kaat, Tommy John, Jamie Moyer and Frank Tanana aren't in the Hall of Fame. Do any of them deserve induction? You can eliminate Moyer and his 4.25 career ERA right away. He had 638 career starts, winning 269, striking out 2,441 in 4,074 innings pitched. He won 103 games after age 39, with a 4.40 ERA over that stretch. And his 522 home runs surrendered is the highest figure in MLB history. 269 wins is impressive at first, but only at first. Moyer received Cy Young votes three times in his 25 year career. What about Frank Tanana? He won 240 games, had a 3.66 ERA, and struck out 2,773. Tanana was actually on a Hall of Fame-type pace through age 25. 175 starts into his career (five full seasons), he was 84-61 with a 2.86 ERA, striking out 1,074 batters. He struck out 275 batters to lead the American League in 1975, led the AL with a 0.988 WHIP in 1976, and led the AL with a 2.54 ERA and a 154 ERA + in 1977. He finished 4th in the 1975 Cy Young vote, 3rd in 1976, and 9th in 1977. He won 19 games in 1976, and 18 in 1978. The next four years, though, he went 29-45 with a 4.10 ERA. From 1979 to 1993, Tanana was 156-175 with a 4.03 ERA. Tanana had an outstanding first five seasons, but he never performed at that same level again. That leaves Tommy John, the pitcher closest to Kaat per Baseball Reference. John never won a Gold Glove, but the pitching stats are very close. John won 288 games (to 283 for Kaat), had a 3.34 ERA (3.45 for Kaat), and struck out 2,245 (2,461 for Kaat). John went to the All Star Game four times to three for Kaat. The difference, though, can be seen in Cy Young voting. John never won the award, but he finished second in the vote twice (20-7, 2.78 ERA in 1977 for the Dodgers, and 21-9, 2.96 ERA in 1979 for the Yankees). He was fourth in the Cy Young in 1980 with the Yankees (22-9, 3.43 ERA) and eighth in 1978 with the Dodgers (17-10, 3.30 ERA). Interestingly, Kaat did not receive a single vote in 1974, due to a stellar group of starters in the AL. But neither John or Kaat are in Cooperstown, and I don't see either making it. He was a good pitcher, at times an All Star pitcher. But he was never one of the elite pitchers in Major League Baseball. Bill Mazeroski is one of, if not the best defensive second basemen to ever play the game. His 23.9 dWAR is the highest in the history of the game for second basemen. He did at least half of his job, every day, at an elite level. Kaat was an All Star three times in a quarter century of play. Mazeroski was a seven time All Star in seventeen seasons. Only two second basemen are usually selected to the All Star team for each league, while 5, 6 or 7 starting pitchers will get elected. Maz had more than double the All Star selections, in eight fewer seasons, at a position much harder to get elected to.

Ozzie Smith was brought up as a point of comparison. Tabe stated that he at least had a few seasons where he was average or better offensively. Ok. I do not dispute this. They still ended with a near identical OPS, .667 for Maz, .666 for Smith, and their OPS + figures are quite close, as well; 87 for Smith, 84 for Maz. For the first 1,008 games of his career, Ozzie Smith was a .238 hitter. Had he not been a spectacular defensive shortstop, he likely wouldn't have remained in the Major Leagues during this period. He was an All Star in 1981 with the Padres, a season he hit .222 with a .549 OPS. What did the Wizard of Oz do in the post season? He was a .236 hitter. Ozzie Smith only had more than 200 total bases in a season three times. Maz did that five times more than Smith, despite the fact that Smith averaged 50 more plate appearances a season. Smith was in no way a better offensive player. Smith had 3,084 total bases in 2,573 games played. Mazeroski had 2,848 in 2,163 games.

The point? Ozzie Smith's offensive performance really had zero bearing on his induction to Cooperstown. He got in for his defense. So did Mazeroski.

Again, Ozzie Smith played 19 years. Maz 17. Compare their stats:

Fielding percentage: Smith .978, Mazeroski .983.
Double plays: Smith 1,590. Mazeroski 1,706.

Look at the metrics:
Range factor per game: Smith 5.03, Mazeroski 5.57
League range factor per game: Smith 4.77 (+.26), Mazeroski 5.28 (+.29)
Total fielding runs above average per 1,200 innings: Smith 13, Mazeroski 10

Their numbers are very, very close. While it's impossible to directly compare shortstop to second base defensively, because they are different animals, Mazeroski's performance with the glove is clearly on par with that of Smith's.

Let's look at the averages for National League hitters in the seasons Mazeroski played, and how he compared to them. He was a full-time player between 1957 and 1968.



Mazeroski actually performed at or above league average for every year he was a starter except for 1959. He was only at or above league average in OBP in 1960 and 1968. That is probably Mazeroski's greatest weakness as a hitter. While he was an average hitter, he did not walk. But his power actually matches up quite well against league average. In six of the twelve seasons he was a full-time player, he met or exceeded league average in slugging. He met or exceeded league average in OPS four times, and came within four points two other seasons. Really, he wasn't that bad of a hitter when you compare him to everybody else that was hitting in the National League at the same time.

I ran a report on Baseball Reference for all National League second basemen who played at least 1,000 games at the position between 1950 and 1980. 16 players matched these criteria. Mazeroski was tied for ninth in OPS, but only 3 points from 8th place, the middle offensive performance of these players.

The comparison:



What to take from this? There were two other Hall of Fame second baseman in this period, Joe Morgan and Red Schoendienst. Morgan's .829 OPS represents the absolute pinnacle of National League second base offensive performance in this three decade period. .829. Schoendienst is 76 points behind at .753. Of all these sixteen qualifying second basemen, Mazeroski was second from the bottom in average at .260. That sounds bad, but when you consider the average of this entire group is only .271, .260 isn't a huge drop off. We already know that Maz suffered when it comes to OBP. Again, he was second to last at .299, with the average of all these second basemen .334. But, Mazeroski is 4th best in slugging percentage at .367. Only Morgan's .433, Schoendienst's .408, and Davey Lopes' .385 were better. The average OPS of all these second basemen was .696. I arrived at this figure by combining the average OBP and average SLG. Average OBP was figured by totaling all hits, walks and hit by pitch, and dividing that figure by total at bats, walks, hit by pitch and sac flies. Average SLG was figured by dividing total bases by at bats for these sixteen second basemen.

I'm doing this because I want to create an expectation for the position. It's easy to say that Bill Mazeroski was a terrible hitter. He really wasn't. We need to first grasp what an "average" hitter was in the National League during the span of his career. Then, we need to compare his hitting to the hitting of other full-time second basemen in his era. Second basemen just don't hit for a lot of power. Expecting an NL second baseman from this era to hit .290 with 20 home runs and an .800 + OPS isn't being reasonable. Again, an .829 OPS is the very best. Certainly, Morgan had better individual seasons. Between 1975 and 1976, his two MVP seasons, he combined for a .997 OPS. But that nearly's unprecedented. The only National League second baseman to exceed that OPS in a season since 1900, and prior to 1980, was Rogers Hornsby (he did it seven times!). The point to all of this? Outside of a few freaks of nature that have come along since 1900 (Morgan, Hornsby, Jackie Robinson, Frankie Frisch a couple times), second basemen didn't ever approach a .900 OPS. It didn't happen. It's a defensive first position, and historically has always been so. Now, there are hitters like Jeff Kent, and Roberto Alomar, Ryne Sandberg, etc. These guys have benefited from modern conditioning programs. Like the change at shortstop starting in the 1980s when Robin Yount, Cal Ripken Jr and Alan Trammel began hitting for power, second base has evolved into a position that can produce big offense. Sure, there were others that came along occasionally, Honus Wagner, Ernie Banks and Vern Stephens, to name a few. But these guys, at least as of 1980, were still the exception to the rule.

When Bill Mazeroski's complete game was examined, it was found that he had about average offensive production (for all NL hitters and second basemen), while providing the absolute peak of defensive performance. True, a great offensive player can have a bigger impact on a team's fortunes in a game than a great defensive player. All one has to do is examine WAR, and the biggest hitters achieve a much higher WAR than the best defenders. But when one is arguably the best to ever play a position with the glove, they deserve in the Hall of Fame. Mazeroski was no star hitter, but in examining the others in the eras surrounding him, he actually wasn't the slouch some make him out to be. When expectations are properly tempered for the position, and the era, simply "average" offense, and spectacular defense, should merit an invite to Cooperstown. If a hitter is a simply spectacular hitter, and an average fielder, they call him Ted Williams, and invite him right away. Why is defense discounted? I believe Mazeroski's induction came about as it should have. He wasn't invited immediately because he didn't excel in the most important facet of the game. The immediate invites for second base are, and should be reserved for the true superstars. In fact, he had to wait to be elected by the Seniors Committee. The time frame is befitting of his player profile. But he certainly was not elected because of one swing of that bat.