WAR Question:

[Peter_Spaeth]

Trammell hit .300 7 times. How do you figure Grich is the better hitter?

[nat]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Trammell hit .300 7 times. How do you figure Grich is the better hitter?

Trammell had a career on-base percentage of .352 against a league average of .330.

Grich had a career on-base percentage of .371 against a league average of .324.

So Grich was both better at getting on base than Trammell, and had to do it in an environment in which getting on base was harder to do.

A walk isn't as good as a hit, because hits can move runners along. So let's look at their respective abilities to do that.

Trammell had a career slugging percentage of .415 against a league average of .401.

Grich had a career slugging percentage of .424 against a league average of .384.

So Grich picked up more bases each time he came to bat than did Trammell, and he did it in an environment in which hitting for power was harder. Trammell was better at hitting singles than Grich was (that accounts for the difference in batting average), but that's more than made-up for by Grich's superior ability draw walks, together with the fact that he hit for more power.

[Peter_Spaeth]

So what's your theory on why Trammell is in the Hall and Grich never even registered with the voters or the VC?

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Trammell hit .300 7 times. How do you figure Grich is the better hitter?

Trammell was the better pure hitter if you go by AVG alone. But hitting is not just AVG, of course. Ted Williams knew this: if you can't hit safely, get on base. What's the line from Moneyball? "He gets on base a lot. Do I care if it's a walk or a hit? No, I do not." Trammell had a .285 career AVG, and his OBP was .352. Grich hit .266, but with all those walks, his lifetime OBP of .371 dusts Trammell's. He got on base more. Grich also had a better SLG (.424 vs .415 for Trammell) playing in an era where hitting was at a premium. If you adjust for league averages, Grich did more damage at bat than Trammell. Significantly more.

Consider this. Three guys playing premium positions (short and second).

Player 1: lifetime 72.4 WAR. 115 Career OPS +. Hall of Famer
Player 2: lifetime 70.7 WAR. 110 Career OPS +. Hall of Famer
Player 3: lifetime 71.1 WAR. 125 Career OPS +. Not a Hall of Famer

If this is the era of advanced metrics, players three, Bobby Grich, is clearly on par with players one and two, Derek Jeter and Alan Trammell. If the argument is that Jeter is an automatic inductee because of his 3,000 hits (and Grich got only 1,833), how much value did Derek Jeter really give the New York Yankees during his career? WAR is clearly an imperfect metric. It can't be considered otherwise until there is one standard formula. What WAR does, however, is force baseball fans to look at things differently. I think that's a good thing.

So, maybe Grich deserves to be in the Hall. Before you scoff, think of this. What am I always harping on? Context!

If you look at the numbers like home runs, batting average, it might seem that Grich was a slightly above average player. But numbers can be deceiving. Consider this.

Carl Yastrzemski won the batting title in 1968 with a .301 AVG. The next best hitter in the American League was Danny Carter at .290. Yaz also led the league with a .426 OBP. Frank Robinson was next best at .390. Did Yaz have an off year in 1968? No. The pitching was that good.

Well, Bobby Grich came up to the Majors in 1970. He started off in that same pitcher dominated era.

Look at the average runs scored per game in the AL by year.

1968 3.41 (lowest in AL history)
1969 4.09 (MLB institutes a change to mound height across baseball)
1970 4.17 Bobby Grich plays in 30 games
1971 3.87
1972 3.47!!
1973 4.28
1974 4.10
1975 4.30
1976 4.01
1977 4.53
1978 4.20

Between 1970 and 1978, Grich puts up a 122 OPS +. His actual OPS is only .763 (.369 OBP, .394 SLG), but pitching dominates so much, even after MLB institutes the mound height adjustment, that offense is at a premium. Hell, in 1976, his .790 OPS is 38% above American League average.

Bring Carl Yastrzemski back into the conversation.

Yaz's .922 OPS In 1968 was worth a 171 OPS. He was 71% above league average.
In 1981, Bobby Grich led the American League with a 165 OPS +. He had a .921 OPS.

See the difference? Yaz and Grich, in those two seasons, had nearly identical OPS figures. But Yastrzemski's 1968 was, essentially, 6% better than Grich's 1981, relative to league average, because the pitching he faced was better in 1968. That's why you cannot simply compare things like batting average, and home runs, from players of different eras and leagues.

If you look at Grich, season by season, the counting stats don't grab ya. But he's sneaky good.

And yes, Grich only had four Gold Gloves. But that shouldn't be construed as meaning he had a drop off defensively after his last win. Hank Aaron won three straight Gold Gloves from 1958 to 1960. Did his play in the field drop off precipitously? No. He had a 2.0 dWAR in 1961. His play with the glove was worth two wins. But Roberto Clemente was also a right fielder in the NL, and starting in 1961, he won 12 straight Gold Gloves. He's arguably the best to ever play the position, at least with the glove. So, Aaron still played good defense, but, to borrow from Highlander, "there can be only one" winner.

Bobby Grich was still pretty good defensively after the Gold Gloves. It's just that Frank White and Lou Whitaker were better, splitting the next 11 awards between them.