An evidence based discussion about the players who've been overlooked for Cooperstown
 

This has been knocking around in my head for some time now. I've been wanting to lead a discussion about the players who, for one reason or another, have been overlooked by the Baseball Writers, and even the Veterans Committee. Players that we feel merit further consideration for the Hall of Fame. Only this discussion is going to be different than the other ones that have been going on since the first Hall of Fame class was voted into Cooperstown in 1936. It's going to be different than the Hall of Fame debate that just popped up on the pre-war main forum earlier today. In this discussion, we are going to remove emotion, and team loyalty, from the equation. There will be no hyperbole. This discussion will revolve around facts. Statistics. Comparisons of the players we are considering to the others who were in the Major Leagues at the same time. We are, in essence, going to be creating our own arguments for these players. We are going to look at it as if we were making the case for these players to the BBWAA, or the Veterans Committee themselves. Gentlemen, we are going to be advocates for some of the greats of the game who have fallen in between the cracks.

In mid August, I received an e-mail from Ken (earlywynnfan) asking if I could do an analysis of some players, and their Hall of Fame chances. He wanted to look at Carl Mays, Minnie Minoso and Omar Vizquel. I think all three men warrant consideration. Vizquel has not yet met the 5 year waiting period, as he last played in 2012. So it will be interesting to see how he does in the actual BBWAA vote, and how that vote compares to what we find here.

I am also going to ask you all to come up with suggestions of players you feel should be looked at again. Keep in mind that the Hall of Fame exists to recognize the true greats of the game, so these players should have been exceptional.

The first player I will be looking at is one of the worst hitters in the history of Major League Baseball. That player is Mark Belanger. Belanger is, in my opinion, one of the finest defensive baseball player in the game's history.

Mark Belanger, shortstop
Mark Henry Belanger (The Blade)
Baltimore Orioles (1965-1981)
Los Angeles Dodgers (1982)

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2013/0221...ger_mb_576.jpg

Career stats
http://imageshack.com/a/img673/523/wGXmfK.png

Leading off this discussion with perhaps the very worst hitter of the modern era as my choice for most deserving of Cooperstown induction may seem strange. But make no mistake about it. Mark Belanger is worthy of the Hall of Fame. That he is not there is a monumental oversight by the Baseball Writers and the Veterans Committee.

http://imageshack.com/a/img674/396/MbK8tz.jpg
My 1975 Topps Mark Belanger.

I've long felt that the Baseball Hall of Fame was offense biased. If you were a career .330 hitter with 2,500 hits and a few MVPs, you were in. For the longest time, if a player reached the 3,000 hit plateau, or hit 500 home runs, they were virtually assured that the Baseball Writers were going to elect them after the mandatory 5 year waiting period had been met. But then again, offense has always been easier to study than defense. The number of home runs, or runs batted in a hitter tallied in one season was easy to track. Defense has always been harder to measure. You might know a great play when you see it, but in the boxscore, it just showed up as an out. Brooks Robinson makes a spectacular play at third on a ball slicing down the line in the 1970 World Series against the Cincinnati Reds, and throws the ball all the way across the field to the first baseman for the out. One of the truly iconic plays in the history of baseball. The box score shows it as a 5-3 groundout. You could say "wow", but there was really no way to quantify how good he was. The statistics used to measure defense were woefully inadequate. Assists, double plays, fielding percentage. If you didn't make any mistakes, you could end the season with a 1.000 fielding percentage. Fielding percentage actually seemed to penalize the best fielders. Some balls could not be caught. Some the truly great shortstops, or second basemen, tried to get, but could not turn into an out. Those might have been ruled an error by the official scorekeeper. Nevermind that the ball was a full three steps to the right of the shortstop, and mere mortal men would not have even gotten to the ball. But the great defenders were all too often overlooked. Some of the great defenders were also great hitters. Clemente won batting titles. In his prime, Brooks Robinson hit enough to win an MVP. Curt Flood, in his prime, was a .300 hitter with a little power, and a little speed. But some of the very best fielders were not great hitters, and so they were overlooked when it came time to hand out awards. They were forgotten when it came time to vote for the Hall of Fame.

Mark Belanger was a bad hitter. A really bad hitter. How bad? Of all the hitters with 5,000 or more at bats in the modern era (1920 to today), Belanger had the lowest OPS of all. OPS, of course, combines OBP (on base percentage) with SLG (slugging percentage), or power. Nobody did both getting on base and hitting for power worse than Mark Belanger.

http://imageshack.com/a/img661/1995/kd3S79.png

Belanger appeared on the 1988 Hall of Fame ballot, and only received 3.7% of the vote. He did not meet the minimum threshold to stay on the ballot (5%). So, that was it. In 1988, Sabermetrics did not exist. The members of the BBWAA (Baseball Writers of America) only had Belanger's putrid offensive numbers, and the most basic of defensive metrics to go off of. And they knew he had 8 Gold Gloves. Well, Brooks Robinson, who was to his right, had sixteen Gold Gloves, so clearly, Belanger benefitted from Robinson's presence. Since he couldn't hit, and since 8 Gold Gloves was good, but not really great, especially considering who played alongside of him, Belanger's Hall of Fame eligibility was basically discarded.

What if I were to tell you that in the history of baseball, Mark Belanger had the second highest dWAR of all-time? dWAR is Defensive Wins Above Replacement. Click the link if you need an explanation of what WAR is, and how it's calculated. The only player with a higher dWAR than Mark Belanger is Ozzie Smith. More on that in a minute.

In the history of Major League Baseball (modern era 1920 to present), there have only been 25 players to compile a career dWAR of 20 or higher. The list that follows shows the truly elite defensive players in the game's history.

http://imageshack.com/a/img745/7803/i0xEV4.png

If you look at this list, you will see that Brooks Robinson, Belanger's teammate, ends up one slot below Belanger. And again, Ozzie Smith is the only player to have a higher career dWAR than Belanger. But compare the dWAR of these players to the number of games played. Ozzie Smith's dWAR is a full 4 points higher than Belanger's. But Smith also played in 557 more games. That's nearly three and a half more years.

So, to figure out which player truly had the biggest defensive impact from this list, I took the career games played total for each player, and divided by 162. The total seasonADJ figure tells me how many standardized 162 game seasons each player completed in his career. I took their career dWAR figures and divided by the number of standardized 162 game seasons. Mark Belanger is not only the best on this list, he is #1 by a comfortable amount. He averaged nearly a half dWAR more per season than Smith.

http://imageshack.com/a/img742/9258/a7pXlU.png

When you look at these figures, it's no surprise at all that the Baltimore Orioles were consistently among the elite teams in baseball in the late 60s and early to mid 70s. If you look at the number of Gold Gloves Oriole infielders won between 1969 and 1975, their success isn't surprising.

Brooks Robinson 7 at third base
Mark Belanger 5 at shortstop
Davey Johnson 3 at second base
Bobby Grich 3 at second base

Baltimore Oriole players won 18 of a possible 21 Gold Gloves at the 3 double play positions. Of course, Brooks Robinson won 9 other Gold Gloves. Before they had Mark Belanger, the Orioles had Luis Aparicio at shortstop, and he won two Gold Gloves for the Orioles, in 1964 and 1967. The Orioles easily had one of the best defensive infields in baseball history.

We can look at other metrics that show how great Belanger was. Total Zone Runs, for one, indicates how many runs above or below average a defensive player was worth. Belanger's 35 Total Zone Runs in 1975 is listed as the second best total ever for a shortstop. I question the accuracy of the single season leader. Adam Everett is listed as being worth 40 runs above average in 2006. His second best total in any season was 10 runs above average in 2004. He never had more than 6 in any other season. I'm not contending it's wrong, but that possibility exists. But back to Belanger. This means Belanger's defense saved 35 runs more than the average shortstop in 1975. Belanger led the American League in Total Zone Runs eight times, in 1968, 1971, and ever season from 1973 to 1978. His 238 Total Zone Runs career total is second best all-time, 1 behind Ozzie Smith, who we have already established played some 550 more games than Belanger. Clearly, Belanger is the best shortstop in baseball history at saving runs when time played is considered as a factor. Remember, these figures represent above or below average. If I am interpreting this correctly, Mark Belanger, over the course of his career, saved 238 more runs than an average shortstop would have over the same period of time.

Per Fangraphs, Total Zone ratings break down into tiers. League average would be zero. Positive scores represent above average fielding, negative scores below average fielding.

http://imageshack.com/a/img742/4528/cYbl5s.png

Belanger, clearly, was exceptional, scoring above 15, the Gold Glove threshold, seven times.

Still other methods of assessing Belanger's true greatness exist. Range factor being one. Range factor measures a defender's contribution to a team's defense. It calculates putouts and assists per 9 innings. It takes the exact opposite approach to fielding percentage, which calculates how cleanly a fielder handles the balls he makes a play on. Range factor rewards players with range because, theoretically, they will get to more balls than somebody with less range. Range can be derived from different factors-reflexes, instincts, speed, and athleticism. Simply put, if two shortstops are compared, the one with the higher range factor is making a greater contribution towards his team's success by getting to, and making more plays.

Mark Belanger's range factor per 9 innings is the 4th best all-time by a shortstop at 5.241. Interestingly, the highest range factor/9 IP by a Hall of Famer is 5.215 by Ozzie Smith, who is fifth all-time. Robin Yount, seventh all-time, has the second highest range factor per 9 innings by a shortstop at 5.132.

Baseball Reference's Career Leaders & Records for Range Factor per 9 innings as a shortstop

There are yet other ways of measuring Belanger's defensive contributions, some of which require thinking outside of the box. One such method would be to examine the number of twenty game winners the Orioles had during Belanger's career.

In order for a starting pitcher to win twenty games in a season, they must, of course, remain healthy. They must have an offense to provide run support for them. But most importantly, a successful pitcher should try to limit the number of base runners they allow, as fewer base runners will invariably lead to fewer runs scored. A great defense behind a pitcher will go a long way towards helping them win 20 or more games. During the time when Belanger and Brooks Robinson paired as full time starters, which was from 1968 to 1975, Robinson won all eight of the Gold Gloves that were awarded. Mark Belanger won 5 of the 8 Gold Gloves, losing out to Luis Aparicio in 1968 and 1970, and Detroit Tiger Ed Brinkman in 1972.

During this eight year span, the Orioles were incredibly successful. They won their division 5 times, won the American League pennant in 1969, 1970 and 1971, and won the World Series in 1970. And Baltimore's rise to greatness coincided with Belanger's winning the starting job. In 1967, Belanger played only 69 games. The Orioles were 76-85, and finished 6th in the American League. However, the Orioles were 36-33 that year in the games Belanger played. In 1968, the O's improved to 91-71, 2nd place in the American League. The next three seasons, the Orioles won 109, 108 and 101 games. While Belanger's bat had little to do with their success, there is no doubting that Belanger's presence helped to make the team a winner. And there's little doubt, too, that his exceptional defense helped many of the starting pitchers for Baltimore realize unprecedented success. Of the pitchers to win 20 games at one point or another for Baltimore, Jim Palmer was truly the only star of the bunch. He was the Hall of Famer. But there were a lot of other 20 game winners because the team behind them was exceptional. Here's a breakdown of the Baltimore Oriole 20 game winners between 1968 and 1975.


1968: Dave McNally (22-10)
1969: Mike Cuellar (23-11), Dave McNally (20-7)
1970: Jim Palmer (20-10), Mike Cuellar (24-8), Dave McNally (24-9)
1971: Mike Cuellar (20-9),Pat Dobson (20-8),Jim Palmer (20-9), Dave McNally (21-5)
1972: Jim Palmer (21-10)
1973: Jim Palmer (22-9)
1974: Mike Cuellar (22-10)
1975: Jim Palmer (23-11), Mike Torrez (20-9)\

Mike Cuellar was a very good pitcher. He went 185-130, ending with a .587% lifetime winning percentage, and a 3.14 ERA. He won the 1969 Cy Young Award. Dave McNally went 184-119 for a career .607 winning percentage. He ended with a 3.24 ERA. Pat Dobson ended up with a 122-129 career record, and a 3.54 career ERA. After winning 20 games for the Orioles in 1971, he eventually ended up with the New York Yankees. He won 19 games for New York in 1974. Mike Torrez went 185-160 in his career, a .536 winning percentage. He had a 3.96 career ERA. Jim Palmer went 268-152 in his career, good for a .638 winning percentage. Palmer spun an outstanding 2.86 ERA for his career, on his way to 3 Cy Young Awards and election to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Palmer himself added 4 Gold Gloves to his resume.

In total, between 1968 and 1975, the Baltimore Orioles had 15 20 game winners. While it's impossible to know just how many of those games were won because of a play made by any individual defender, the defense the Orioles had was stifling. And Belanger, having a higher dWAR per 162 games played than any other defender in baseball history, with the 4th highest shortstop range factor in baseball history, with the second best total zone rating by a shortstop in baseball history (and only 1 point behind Ozzie Smith, who played 550 + more games), was one of the biggest factors in Baltimore's success. He didn't do much with the bat, though he did contribute occasionally. He hit a home run in the first ever American League Championship series game in 1969. He hit .333 in the 1970 ALCS, helping his team get to and ultimately win the World Series. But it was his glove, his brilliant defensive play that ended one rally after another, that helped his team every single game. Unlike a hitter, who can have a cold streak, a great defender contributes every single game they play. And Belanger, who may be the greatest single defensive player in the game's history, should be enshrined in Cooperstown.

Players have been enshrined for their offensive prowess only. It is commonly held that Ted Williams was a below average outfielder. He was constantly distracted, thinking about his next at bat. His Hall of Fame induction was based solely on his offensive acumen. Why then should a player not make it to Cooperstown only because of his defensive abilities? Belanger didn't have slumps in the field. While a hitter might only have one or two hits in a game, a shortstop makes several plays each game. How many double plays did Belanger turn in his career? 1,054. He led the American League in assists three times between 1973 and 1976, and the other season he was second in assists. And even with his incredible range, even when he got to balls that other shortstops simply couldn't get to, he didn't make mistakes. Between 1974 and 1978 he led the American League in fielding percentage three times. In the other seasons he was second or third. Belanger was a black hole at shortstop. Balls were hit in his general direction, and rallies were never heard from again. Cal Ripken Jr, a Hall of Famer himself, credits Belanger with teaching him the nuances of the position. Ripken said that Mark Belanger taught him how to turn the double play.

http://www.oriolesnumbers.com/pictures/blade.jpg
The Blade sends another hitter to the dugout.

When a player can be called the very best ever in Major League history, they deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. He may not have been potent with his bat, but defense is half the game, and Belanger was as good at shortstop as anybody who has ever played the position.

I agree that Belanger may have been the greatest fielder ever but I never thought of him as a hall of famer. Frankly I had always assumed he hadn't played enough. I didn't realize he played over 2,000 games which considering his awful hitting is a great testament to his defensive ability (as is his overall WAR of 41). I actually have no problem w/him going in the HOF though I'd put his teammate, Bobby Grich, in before him.

Any thoughts on Lee Smith's chances? Seems like a solid HOF prospect, but I think at this point, unlikely to get in.

Bill- I always enjoy the depth of your research.

However, I am not completely comfortable with defensive statistics in general and dWAR specifically...since I found Gary Carter so far ahead of Johnny Bench on the career list.

Maybe I grossly underrated Carter, but Bench was a pioneer and his career was a watershed moment for the science of catching and even with a shorter career, I cannot get my mind around anyone, other than Ivan (Bench.1) having better career defensive value.

Amazing Research!
I am with you I have always thought Belanger and Dave Concepcion get no credit, maybe because they played on great teams, maybe because they were defensive oriented. But when it comes to HoF voting apparently I'll never get it. You are either a HoFer or your not the first ballot vs. Non first ballot drives me crazy!

Great job Bill, but no way is Belanger a HOF'er. Hitting is an integral part of the game, and he failed miserably in that area.

Wow bill! You devoted some time to this, nice work. I can't agree with Belanger going into the Hall but I certainly know more about him and the Orioles now. Seems Concepcion would be the better candidate because he hit a little and I think he was as good defensively as Belanger regardless of the dWar numbers.

My vote is for League MVP, gold glove & silver slugger winning 7 time All Star Dave Parker.

I think both hitting and fielding are integral parts of the game, and if players can make the Hall of Fame for their hitting prowess alone, why can there not be players who make it for their fielding alone? The Hall exists to recognize, supposedly, the very greatest players in baseball history. There is compelling evidence to back up the assertion that Mark Belanger was the greatest defensive shortstop to ever play the game, or at the very least, on equal footing with the very best to ever play the position.

A hitter can be completely taken out of a game. A hitter gets 3 to 4, maybe 5 at bats in a game depending on how the game is progressing. If a pitcher doesn't want to face a hitter, they can simply intentionally walk them. They could conceivably do this each time the hitter came to the plate. It's far fetched, but not impossible. But a fielder, especially a great one, can negate much of the opposing team's offense, and they cannot be taken out of the game the way a hitter can.

If a right handed pitcher is facing a predominantly right handed lineup, the majority of batted balls should be to their pull side, the third base side. The shortstop and third baseman would work in symphony to silence much of that offense. Sharp grounders, well hit line drives become outs to a higher degree. Suddenly hitters are trying to put more loft into their swings, and in doing so, are having to slightly alter their approach at the plate. Belanger was a guy that with his range, and having Brooks Robinson to his right, could eliminate much of the opposing team's offense.

Ted Williams had a career WAR of 123.1 His oWAR was 126.3. His dWAR was -13.3. Clearly, he is a Hall of Famer because of his bat. It's been written that when Carl Yastrzemski came up for the Red Sox, the team immediately got better. He provided comparable offense, and vastly improved the defense.

Frank Thomas was just elected to Cooperstown as one of the great Chicago White Sox of all-time. His career WAR? 73.7. His oWAR was 79.8. His dWAR was -23.4. Thomas played 2,322 games in total, of which 1,310 were as a designated hitter. He played 971 games at first base, and had a dWAR of -23.4. His offense was the only thing that kept him in the Majors as over 56% of the games he played he was a hitter only. He never took to the field with a glove. His offense is clearly the only reason he's in the Hall of Fame. Defense, which is half the game, was a non factor with Frank Thomas.

Were Williams or Thomas as bad defensively as Mark Belanger was offensively? Probably not, because as I've shown, for the men in the modern era that managed to compile 5,000 or more at bats, Belanger had the lowest OPS of all. But it's clear that these two men were below average defensively. Only baseball, American League baseball, allows you to hide one poor defender with the designated hitter. Fielders did not get that luxury.

Ozzie Smith made it to the Hall of Fame, and he was pretty much a non factor offensively. Belanger had a .580 OPS. Smith's was .666. Yes, that's 86 points higher, which is statistically relevant. But Ozzie Smith didn't play through a dead ball era (in fact, the later part of his career took place in an era with increased offensive numbers). Belanger did. The first eight years of Belanger's career took place during what is called the second Dead Ball Era in baseball. This took place between 1964 and 1972. People familiar with baseball history will remember this period where pitchers clearly dominated the game, especially in the American League. This is the era during which Denny McClain won 30 games in a season. This is the era during which the aforementioned Carl Yastrzemski won the 1968 American League Batting Title with a .301 average. Yastrzemski was the only American Leaguer to hit .300 that year. In fact, only one other hitter in the AL managed to even hit .290, Oakland's Danny Carter, who hit .290 on the dot for second best behind Yaz. Belanger's play at shortstop was a contributing factor towards lower scoring in the American League.

Defense matters. And the great defenders in the game's history should receive the same level of recognition that the great hitters have gotten since Cooperstown opened her doors to Ruth, Wagner and Cobb.

I think with the ever increasing reliance on not only just closers, but bullpen specialists, like the setup pitcher, the 8th inning pitcher, closers, and non-starters in general will start getting more consideration from the BBWAA, or in Lee Smith's case, the Veteran Committee.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Smith make it one day. In fact, I think he has a good shot. It remains to be seen how the Veterans Committee views him, but he got as high as 50.6% from the Baseball Writers in 2012. He finished just below 500 saves in his career with 478, which is pretty outstanding. Remember, too, that he was the all-time saves leader from 1993 to 2006. He had 3 top 5 Cy Young finishes in a 4 season span later in his career, including a Cy Young runner up in 1991. He led the league in saves three times, but he was an elite closer for more than a decade. His save chances were somewhat limited early on because he spent the first part of his career with a Cubs team that didn't win a lot of games, save for the '84 season. In '84, Smith was 9-7, pitched in 69 games, and saved 33. He's 12th all-time in games pitched with 1,012, and even with Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman passing him, he's still third all-time in saves. The only guy I could see passing him anytime soon is Jonathan Papelbon. I don't see either Francisco Rodriguez or Joe Nathan having enough steam to reach 479.

Bench was a pioneer, absolutely. One thing you need to remember though-Carter played over 300 games more as a catcher than Bench did. That's nearly two full seasons. Carter might not have been a better catcher, but he absolutely could have been a comparable defensive talent. Unfortunately, being the one that revolutionizes a position doesn't get them any extra points in their column. So, while Bench could have advanced things like defensive footwork, and pop rate, Carter could have equaled them.

I would love to be able to break down dWAR by position for those players who were used at more than one defensive position. Maybe there's a way to do that on Baseball Reference or Fangraphs that I'm missing. But here's one thing to keep in mind. If we compare Carter and Bench, and examine what their dWAR totals were at the end of their age 30 season, they're quite close:

Johnny Bench dWAR 18.6 (1967-1978)
Gary Carter dWAR 20.9 (1974-1984)

And the approximately 2 point difference can be traced to Gary Carter's 1983 season when he had a phenomenal 4.0 dWAR. Both Carter and Bench had six seasons with dWAR over 1.8 excluding Carter's 1983 season. Carter had one season with a below average dWAR, when he was -0.4 dWAR in 1988. Johnny Bench's defensive performance in 1982 hurt him, as he had a -1.5 rating. But by then, he wasn't catching. He was playing third base. 107 of the games he played that year were at third base. He played 8 more games at first base, and only one behind the plate. So while you might feel his 19.3 dWAR career total is low, keep in mind that he not only did not gain points for that season, but he lost a point and a half. So his career dWAR would have been more like a 20.8. And there's one other thing to keep in mind. Johnny Bench's dWAR is a combination of his time as catcher, as a third baseman, and a first baseman. 90.5% of Gary Carter's career games were behind the plate. 79.4% of Johnny Bench's games were behind the plate. I find nothing in these numbers that would make me think Gary Carter was a better catcher than Johnny Bench. The most accurate statement I could make would be that Johnny Bench and Gary Carter were in fact quite comparable talents defensively behind the plate. Carter won three Gold Gloves, and then Tony Pena, and then Benito Santiago took over as the best defensive catcher in the National League. While Johnny Bench was catcher, he was the best in the National League, hands down. He won ten Gold Gloves, and his place in the pantheon of great catchers is, in my mind, secure. He's the best combination of catcher offense and defense the game has ever seen.

I respect your opinion, Scott. My last posts touches on my thinking as to why I feel he should be looked at again. Ultimately the Veterans Committee might maintain the status quo. But if the BBWAA can elect players based solely on their offensive prowess, then I feel the very greatest defensive players of all time at a given position should at least merit another review.

Parker will definitely be looked at. Clemente's heir in right field was a damned fine baseball player, and he had some great years in the late 70s. That's when I became a fan of the Pirates. I was young, but there was something about Pops and the Family that just drew me in. We were lucky enough to have the Cobra in Milwaukee for one season, in 1990. He was an All Star, and he won a Silver Slugger by hitting .289 with 21 home runs and 92 RBI for the Brew Crew. That was his best season in the AL.

Thanks to all you guys, Howard and Bear Bailey, too. I'll start working on my next player selection. This one is coming from Ken. We're going to look at the Cuban Comet, Minnie Minoso.

Here's to Mr. Minoso
 

Thanks to all you guys, Howard and Bear Bailey, too. I'll start working on my next player selection. This one is coming from Ken. We're going to look at the Cuban Comet, Minnie Minoso.
__________________


Bill-

I eagerly await your work on Minnie Minoso. Thanks for helping me understand the Bench / Carter comparison.

The problem with only using dWAR and defensive merit is that you are leaving out JAWS, WAR, and even WAR7

If a team can find a player with slightly better batting even if it does make the position slightly weaker you can still have a better chance to win games.

You compared O.Smith to Bellanger because O.Smith was a great deffensive player but his overall contribution to the team was vastly different when you compare the full picture of JAWS WAR WAR7 and even oWAR.

Belanger oWAR = 14.6 over 18 seasons (avg 0.81/season)
O. Smith oWar = 47.8 over 19 seasons (avg 2.52/season)

Belanger RBAT (runs produced from batting) -219
O.Smith RBAT (runs produced from batting) -117

Belanger Rfield (runs from fielding) 241
O.Smith Rfield (runs from fielding) 239

Belanger RAA (runs above average) 160
O.Smith RAA (runs above average) 379

So even though O.Smith may be a slightly worse fielder, his batting was enough to make him a far more useful part of a winning team.

You state the amount of games Belanger played as a reason to average out his dWAR higher. Even in 162 game average Belanger only had 530 PA leading to only 465 AB, whereas O.Smith had a 162 average of 679 PA leading to 592 AB. Ozzie Smith was better known for his fielding and his Batting did lack, but not enough to make him ineffective so they had to hide him in the lineup.

Belanger's effectiveness was diminished by his inability to bat thus leading to him being hidden in the lineup and being removed from games early.

Belanger's
JAWS: 36.5 (39th)
WAR: 41 (38th)
WAR7: 32 (40th)

There is a HOFer that I feel Belanger does equate to and that is Rabbit Maranville. It is a hard argument for Maranville to be in without including Belanger.

Edited to add:

The number of PA that Belanger faced compared to O.Smith is a lot lower as well

Belanger faced 63131 PA, with only 7107 balls fielded. Compare this to O.Smith facing 91803 PA with 10581 balls fielded

Also to show how Belanger's batting did affect the amount of playing time:
He played in 1942 games, out of that he started 1687 (86.87%) he only played 1465 complete games (86.84% of games started were finished), that is only 75.44% of games he did a complete game.
O.Smiths numbers:
2511 Games, out of that he started 2477 (98.65%), he played 2265 complete games (91.44% of games started were finished), this means of the games he played 90.2% were complete games.

Belanger's batting affected the amount of playing time he got. Even in these stats Maranville out does Belanger. When a player can't be counted on to complete more than 3 out of 4 of the games he plays I have a hard time considering him a HOFer.

A HOFer is expected to play at least 10 seasons, Yet Belanger only played over 1000 innings in 9 years of play (for comparison O.Smith had 14 seasons of 1000+ innings seasons (his lowest between 79 and 93 was 81 with 986.1. ). Just because he was in MLB for over 10 seasons it is hard to consider him a HOFer if he didn't even have the innings played in the field for over 10 seasons especially if that is the part of his playing you want to put him in for. Frank Thomas doesn't have the fielding innings played, but the AL does have the DH he did his job and he did it well.

Great research and very interesting discussion. Defense certainly does seem to be often overlooked. As one who had the privilege of seeing Belanger steal more than a few hits away from my favorite team, I would agree that he was the best of the best with the glove. I think another interesting subject would be Graig Nettles, another terrific fielder, who hit with power and drove in runs, pretty much did everything well except hit for average.

...and Clete Boyer

I wouldn't mind having Ron Guidry and Ted Simmons in the Hall.

I second Ted Simmons.

[QUOTE=the 'stache;1318228 Ted Williams had a career WAR of 123.1 His oWAR was 126.3. His dWAR was -13.3. Clearly, he is a Hall of Famer because of his bat. It's been written that when Carl Yastrzemski came up for the Red Sox, the team immediately got better. He provided comparable offense, and vastly improved the defense.

Great subject and very thought provoking. Nice job!

Williams was not a great fielder that is true. He was NOT a terrible outfielder.
His dwar was -13.3. 46% of that negative came in his last 3 years when he was 39, 40, and 41 years old and playing hurt and still, had an overall war or 6.8.
To say that when Yaz came up the team immediately got better is not true. Yastrzemski's dwar in his first year was in negative territory and so was his offense.
There's a lot of great gloves that never make it to the show because they can't hit, but if you can hit, they will always find a spot for you.

Dale Murphy?

Gil Hodges

Dick Allen, and that double combo from Detroit.

This topic becomes more important as Frank Thomas was just elected and the potential for Edgar Martinez or David Ortiz in the future who are true 1 dimensional players as full time DHs might be elected in the future. Defense is just as important as offense but gets no credit.

One that's not eligible yet:
 

Since defense has been prevalent in this thread, how about a guy who is generally considered the best modern day outfielder Andruw Jones.

His offensive stats come up short- .254 BA, 1933 hits, 434 homers

however...his defense, oh his defense was something to behold!

On the All-Time Career list for dWAR, 47 of the top 50 are Shortstops, Third-Basemen, and Catchers.

The other three are two Hall-of-Fame Second-Basemen, Mazeroski (23.9) and Fox (21.0)...and one outfielder, Andruw (24.1)

It should be pointed out that infielders and catchers have the big advantage in dWAR in that they have more total chances per game than outfielders. This makes Andruw's ranking all the more impressive.

If Mazeroski and Fox deserve to be in, and I realize that has been a hot topic, certainly Andruw deserves his shot. His big disadvantage is that his peers (eligible outfielders) will be judged primarily on their superior offensive stats...so this could be a push.

There are certainly some new metrics, both offensive and defensive, that I am learning on the fly. I've yet to find one metric that was all inclusive. Even when you compare something like WAR, or the components, offensive and defensive WAR, there are other things that are getting left out. The Ozzie Smith to Belanger comparison was the obvious comp because they both were clearly defensive first players, and among the best, if not the best, at their position defensively in their generation. But while Ozzie Smith's offensive output was not anywhere near the output of some of today's shortstops like Troy Tulowitzki, or even Derek Jeter, it was still better than Belangers. Ozzie was better, and he played longer. Plus, he brought a speed component that Belanger really didn't have. I think he stole about three times as many bases.

Part of the reason why I want to do this as a discussion is that I invite other people who love analyzing baseball statistics as I do to jump into the conversation, and bring up things that I might have missed, or may have just glossed over. There are so many new methods of evaluating play, so it makes for an interesting discussion while at the same time it proves educational for me. One day soon, I'll be able to rattle off these new metrics like I created them. But I'm not there yet. So while I learn, and maybe the rest of us consider players that we might not have before, it's fun for everybody. Plus, if we do look at somebody who has been considered for Cooperstown before, but passed over, maybe these new metrics, and a second (or third) look will change some minds. The baseball community is a pretty tight-knit one. When I read stories online, you often see one writer commenting on, or expanding on something that another writer may have commented on. There's no telling who will read this. If some compelling evidence is provided, I wouldn't at all be surprised if it made its way to somebody with the ability to shape a player's Hall of Fame fortunes. The internet isn't like real life. If I wanted to meet John Thorn, Major League Baseball's official historian, I'd have to plan a trip, or attend a function I knew he'd be at, and hope for a chance encounter. But if you write a fascinating article, word of mouth can spread on the internet. This is the age where videos "go viral". Well, my ultimate aim is to blog on my own website, a website that will be devoted to two things-our hobby, and the sport that has birthed our hobby. I love both passionately, and these somewhat informal chats we hold, prove to be nice warm ups for me.

As I've said before many times, baseball, more than any other sport, lends itself to statistical analysis. The other sports will evolve over time. Pro Football has evolved, and where offenses used to be run first, it's clear that passing offenses have become the norm in the game. But now, I think, you're starting to see a shift back to the old smash mouth brand of football. But baseball, though it has had periods where pitching or hitting dominated, has stayed pretty much the same. Athletes are bigger, stronger and faster now, but the game has a way of still rewarding the great players, not necessarily the greatest athletes. No matter how fast you are, or how far you can hit a baseball, the very best hitters are still going to make an out 7 out of 10 times they come to the plate.

Each time we focus on a different player, you get more people involved in the discussion. And with more people in that discussion, the conversation gets more and more interesting.

Minoso ought to be fun. I'm still working on him, but I'm a little surprised thus far by how well he's matched up against some of the other hitters in his generation. The Packers have lost, so now I can get back to it.

Carl Mays
Dick Allen
Dale Murphy
Andruw Jones
Dave Parker
Omar Vizquel

Some good players coming up.

By the way, if you've never read John Thorn's MLB Blog, I highly recommend it. If you are a fan of Ken Burns' Baseball documentary, you will recognize him. He has a real flair with the pen (well, the keyboard). He goes way back into the game's history, and brings long forgotten players to life.

MLB Blog of official baseball historian John Thorn

Jones is one we will definitely look at.

Minnie Miñoso, left fielder
Saturnino Orestes Armas (Arrieta) Minoso (Cuban Comet)
Cleveland Indians (1949, 1951, 1958-1959)
Chicago White Sox (1951-1957, 1960-1961, 1964, 1976, 1980)
St. Louis Cardinals (1962)
Washington Senators (1963)

http://imageshack.com/a/img540/4858/F9KR4B.jpg
Career stats
http://imageshack.com/a/img673/6199/RsFP2M.png

The next player we are looking at is a name that is still revered in the city of Chicago 50 years after he last played for the White Sox. Or, 34 years since he last played for the Sox if you include his little 2 game publicity stunt in 1980. Regardless of when Minoso's career actually ended, one thing is certain-he has more than met the required 5 year "cooling off" period after the end of his career to be considered for the Hall of Fame. And considered he was. Minoso received 1.8% of the vote in 1964, and was dropped from the ballot. Ah, but then Minoso played again in 1976. 3 games. 8 at bats at the age of 50. He even got a single in one game playing DH against the Angels. This meant he would have a fresh shot at the BBWAA. He played again in 1980 at the age of 54, and went 0-2 at the plate. But five years later, he was again eligible for the Hall of Fame. Where he got less than 2% of the vote the first time, he received 20.9% of the vote in 1986. In 1988, he topped out at 21.1%. Then his numbers slowly dropped off. In 1999, he received 14.7% of the vote, and fell off the ballot.

Minnie Minoso has been called "Mr. White Sox". Though he only played 1,373 games for the White Sox, Minoso was exceedingly popular in Chicago. He was the first black player to make the White Sox team in 1951. Before getting his first shot in the Majors in 1949, Minoso was a star third baseman in the Negro Leagues. Minoso could do it all. He won one of the original 9 Rawlings Gold Glove Awards, which were first awarded in 1957. Minoso would win two more Gold Gloves for his play in left field. He was the American League Rookie of the Year runner up in 1951 when he hit .326 in 146 games. Minoso scored 112 runs, got 173 hits including 34 doubles, 14 triples and 10 home runs. He drove in 76 runs, and had a .922 OPS. Minoso's 14 triples led the American League, as did his 31 stolen bases. Minoso was named to the AL All Star Team, and ended up 4th in the American League MVP vote. He started the season in Cleveland, and was traded to Chicago after 8 games with the Tribe. For the next six years, he was one of the best players in the American League. He went to 4 more All Star Games, hitting .305 with an .874 OPS over that span. Minoso was sent back to Cleveland for the 1958 and 1959 seasons, before going back to Chicago in 1960. For that ten year span, Minoso was one of the most exciting players in baseball. Between 1951 and 1960, Minoso hit .307 with 987 runs scored, 291 doubles, 78 triples, 165 home runs and 895 RBI. He also stole 184 bases, and walked 700 times against only 476 strikeouts. He had an .873 OPS during that period. Minoso would be 35 the next season, and after playing in the Negro Leagues, and then 1,500 games in the Major Leagues, he started to slow down. But Minoso was one of the very best talents in the American League while he played. He led the league in hits once, in doubles once, in triples three times, in stolen bases three times, and in total bases once. He hit .300 or better eight times, scored 100 or more runs four times, and drove in more than 100 runs four times also.

Minoso's career wasn't as long as some of the other stars during his era, and I think that has hurt his Hall of Fame chances. He only had 6,579 career at bats. But he had 1,963 hits, and a career .298 average when he retired. He also had an outstanding .848 career OPS.

To really measure Minoso's greatness, we have to compare his play against the men that were in the game at the same time. Minoso had substantial playing time for the first time in 1951. In 1963 he played in 109 games, and then only 30 games in 1964.

Let's compare Minoso's play against the other Major Leaguers playing between 1950 and 1965. Minoso had over 6,500 at bats in this period, but to truly measure his effectiveness, we want to allow players that might have been starting off, or ending their careers as well as those who spent their prime years in baseball at the same time Minoso played. To do this, I will include any Major League hitters who had 3,000 or more at bats in this 16 year period.

There are a total of 143 Major Leaguers who had 3,000 or more at bats between 1950 and 1965. This is a pretty good sampling size. The first thing I looked at was batting average. To some an outdated metric, but still one of my favorites. Before you start looking at things like OBP, and power or run production, hitting is the one fundamental all good offensive players should master. Before a player can hit home runs, they need to make solid contact. They need to be able to direct a ball in a chosen direction. Of the 142 other hitters to meet our at bat requirement, only fourteen had a higher batting average than the .299 Minoso put up. That sounds pretty good. But when you consider the names on the list ahead of him-Ted Williams, Roberto Clemente, Stan Musial, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Jackie Robinson, Al Kaline, Orlando Cepeda, George Kell, Frank Robinson, Richie Ashburn, Mickey Mantle, Vada Pinson and Harvey Kuenn, fourteenth sounds really good.

http://imageshack.com/a/img674/7815/MyaTAg.png

Of those 14 greats, only Harvey Kuenn and Vada Pinson are not in the Hall of Fame. Kuenn hit .303 and Pinson .302. Now, we come to the next metric. Minoso wasn't Mickey Mantle. He wasn't a home run hitter, though he did above average power. Before a player's on base percentage was really tracked, how did he do at just getting on base. Getting on base by a hit, a walk, or being hit by a pitch-it doesn't matter. Minoso was 12th best in the Majors over this 15 year period. Some of the same usual suspects are ahead of Mr. Minoso. Mantle, Williams, Robinson, Musial. Some of the greatest players not only of these decades, but any decades. And Minoso is on par with these greats. Minoso is outperforming Duke Snider, Enos Slaughter, Hank Aaron, Eddie Mathews, and Al Kaline. Hall of Famers all.

http://imageshack.com/a/img538/9079/pyjTty.png

Now, Minoso did fall down the list for slugging average, finishing 43rd. But he still beat out some pretty notable hitters-Roberto Clemente, Bobby Thomson, Frank Thomas, Jackie Jensen.

Let's then look at my favorite of the old metrics, OPS. Getting on base is one thing. Hitting for power is another. Players who excel at both are rare indeed. Minoso's .849 OPS is outstanding for any era. When we look at OPS +, which adjusts for the ballparks players play their games in, Minoso had the 20th best OPS + in baseball between 1950 and 1965. Better than Ernie Banks. Better than Yogi Berra, and Ted Kluszewski. Better than Vada Pinson and Roy Campanella. Better than Gil Hodges, and Ron Santo. Only two points behind Roger Maris, three points behind Al Kaline. Four behind Jackie Robinson. Minoso was a rare talent.

http://imageshack.com/a/img742/8724/niGc8r.png

Minoso's specialty was extra base hits. He would never win a home run title. But he consistently hit extra bases in the bunches. In 1954, though he only hit 19 home runs, he led the American League in total bases with 304. Besides the 19 home runs, he had 18 triples, and 29 doubles. Between 1950 and 1965, only 13 Major Leaguers had more extra base hits than Minoso. But he had only 178 games between 1962 and 1964, and he didn't play at all in 1965.

What happens if we just focus on the period of 1951 to 1961? An eleven year period when Minoso was a full time player. How did Minoso do in his prime?

Suddenly, Minnie Minoso is the 9th best hitter in the Major Leagues. Only eleven hitters in Major League Baseball hit over .300 in this period.

http://imageshack.com/a/img743/2276/emrVkJ.png

Now Minnie Minoso has the 15th best OPS + in Major League Baseball. That's from both leagues, remember.

http://imageshack.com/a/img538/9362/3ZKLEu.png

Now, there is a flaw inherent with looking at statistics in this way. Make the sample size large enough by increasing the year span covered by your sample, and you start catching portions of a player's career. Obviously a report looking at the best player batting averages between 1951 and 1961 is going to include Roberto Clemente, who was a rookie in 1955, and who would have 3,000 at bats after seven seasons. But he had only started becoming "Clemente" in 1960. It was his second .300 season. His first year as an All Star. He hit for 16 home runs and drove in 94 RBI, not nearly his peak, but he was on his way to stardom. The next year he won the first of his twelve consecutive Gold Glove Awards. But Clemente's 104 OPS + in that eleven year span propped up Minoso in this sample. We know Clemente's career OPS + is 130, and he'd have an MVP season where he, like Robin Yount in 1982, just missed 30 home runs. But this sample is good enough to show that Minnie Minoso was one of the elite players in the game during the entirety of his career. So it begs the question, why is Minoso not a Hall of Famer?

Minoso only played in 1,859 games in the Major Leagues. 6,579 at bats and 1,963 hits might seem insufficient for Hall of Fame induction. But we have to remember he played in the Negro Leagues before he played in the Majors. He was the first black player for the Chicago White Sox. While he did not integrate baseball the way Jackie Robinson did in 1947, Minoso didn't face any less pressure when he played. He, too, played games south of the Mason-Dixon line, and racism, of course, was still a major issue in 1949. Minoso's career arc was quite similar to Jackie Robinson's. Robinson was a Rookie of the Year. Minoso was Rookie of the Year runner up to Gil McDougal of the Yankees. He hit 4 more home runs than Minoso, but Minoso beat him handily in every other category. Minoso was better that year, too, than the National League Rookie of the Year, Willie Mays. Minoso didn't win an MVP like Robinson did in 1949. But that was one of only two top 5 MVP finishes for Jackie. Minoso finished in the MVP top 5 four times. Robinson was a fine fielder, and had he played a little later, he'd have won Gold Gloves. Minoso did win Gold Gloves, three of them.

Minoso brought the same kind of electricity to the game. Robinson stole 197 bases. Minoso stole 205. Robinson was a career .311 hitter and had a career .883 OPS. Minoso hit .298 with an .848 career OPS.

It is my feeling that Minnie Minoso's play deserves another look by the Veterans Committee. He was a great hitter. He was exciting. He was an outstanding fielder, and while he wasn't the pioneer Jackie Robinson was, it didn't make the racism he faced throughout his career any less sickening. Minoso was an elite talent in the game for over a decade, and if he'd been able to start his career earlier, maybe he'd have already been in the Hall of Fame. Willie Mays, who started out at the same time in 1951, was 20 while Minoso was 25. I feel in this instance, the Veterans Committee should focus on the quality of Minnie Minoso's play, and not his final career numbers. With another 4 or five years, Minoso could have approached 3,000 hits by the time he ended his career. But he wasn't given the chance to play.

I'd love to hear your opinions, everybody. My writing of this look at Minnie Minoso's career might not have been up to my usual standards, as I have had a pretty rough night. But the numbers are solid. I think a lot of people will be surprised at just how good a player he was. He's certainly overlooked in discussions about the greats of baseball's golden era. Minoso was one of the most versatile players of his generation. He could make a great play in the field, steal a base, hit a home run, or ignite his team with a triple. And share any Minnie Minoso cards you might have. I just bought my first one a few weeks ago specifically for this discussion. This beautiful 1956 Topps will be part of the set I build one day soon.

http://imageshack.com/a/img538/6913/cu2Fec.png

Wonderful, Bill !
 

I DO think this was up to your high standards and I very much hope that there are some Veterans Committee members who see it.

My favorite Minnie card is the 1953 Bowman Color, which I will post later.


John Thorn caught my attention on the Burns Special too. I am looking forward to reading my newest book purchase by him, 'Baseball in the Garden of Eden - The Secret History of the Early Game' - as soon as I finish reading Kirby Higbie's bio.

Again...Terrific info, Bill - Thank You!

The afore-mentioned 1953 Bowman Color:
 

Orestes 'Minnie' Minoso

Attachment 159502

Nice work Bill.

Thanks, Lou and Clyde.

I love that '53 Bowman. The '53 Color set ranks right up there with the T206 set as my favorites of all-time. I don't need a bunch of information. Just show me baseball players in their old time uniforms, and in those wonderful old stadiums.

John Thorn just put up a gallery of long gone stadiums, some wonderful shots of Ebbets Field, the Polo Grounds, the Baker Bowl (which was pretty much responsible for Chuck Klein's Hall of Fame induction. Think a pre-war version of Coors Field. If you sneezed, and hit the ball in the direction of right field, you had a home run. Straightaway right field was 280 feet, right-center was 300 feet.)

Klein was a lifetime .354 hitter at home, and a .286 hitter on the road. And those numbers were wider before he was traded from the Phillies. In 2,599 at bats at the Baker Bowl, he was a career .395 hitter. LOL.

Evidence based HOF limericks
 

A shortstop for the Os named Belanger
Kept Earl's birds well out of danger
For he couldn't hit a lick
But the balls they did stick
In his glove they were never a stranger.;)



There once was a batter named "Minnie"
Who twas neither fat nor skinny
He'd slide on his face
To steal second base
And then wipe the dirt off his chinny.:eek:



The verbage of 'stache astounds us
With charts of stats he hounds us
We're forced to see
Until we agree
Or he'll continue to pound us.:D

Those are great, Frank!


Bill- I wonder how much of an effect having Brooks to his right had on Belanger...did he feel like he could take chances that other might not? What kind of effect did Belanger have on Brooks' attitude and positioning?

I can't think of another SS-3B combo who were anywhere near them defensively. It just had to help knowing that you had someone next to you like that.

Along with Blair in CF, Boog must have gotten the lion's share of Boots.

interesting discussion.

Imagine coming to the plate, and knowing that the Orioles had Gold Glovers at third, short, second-Davey Johnson then Bobby Grich, center and on the mound, if it was Palmer. You'd better pull that ball to the right or hit it out of the park, because if the ball goes anywhere else, it's going to be an out.

I think that Belanger, knowing he had the human vacuum to his right, was able to take chances he normally wouldn't dream of taking.

As far as a shortstop-third base combo, maybe Mike Schmidt and Larry Bowa. Add in Manny Trillo at second, and that's a pretty tight infield. Anybody with Schmidt was going to be good though, or at least better because of him.

Numerical Limericks & and the Wabash Cannonball?
 

In 1971 the Orioles won and were tenth in the AL in Double Plays.

Tinker to Evers to Chance were not an outstanding double play combo either statistically.

I like numbers to be sure
Math is simple and clearly pure
But twisted stats can mislead
Best to remember when you read
That figures lie and liars figure

The Hall of Fame is clearly flawed
Including chums not to be awed
Accept the Hall for what it is
As PeeWee said to ol' Diz
"It's a great day for baseball"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/120433379

Watch Diz struggle saying Amalfitano.:D

And listen as Diz sings his favorite

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q0X_26gcQs

Frank Burkett is quite the poet
By reading his words we would all know it
It's a very good time
As we read Franks rhymes
And we look forward to the next time he posts it. :D

There once was a man from Nantucket,...





Nah, I can't compete with Frank

How about Gene Tenace?

Very well done, Bill! (Just what I expected!)

Long ago I read something comparing Minoso's stats to Jackie's. They were extremely similar. Not saying Minnie put up with as much crap as Jackie (nobody did,) but the numbers were impressive.

Ken

Thank you, Ken.

I'll get back to this in a bit. Right now, however, I'm not feeling much like talking baseball. My Brewers are having one of the all-time worst collapses in baseball history. They were the first team in baseball to 50 wins. They were 50-32. Soon after they reached 19 games above .500, and if I recall correctly, they had a 6.5 game lead in the NL Central, which was the toughest division in baseball at that point with 4 teams over .500.

Since then, they have gone 24-39. They have lost 13 of their last 14 games, an are now 3 games above .500.

In the last 14 games, we have been outscored 86-35. We are allowing 6.14 runs per game, while scoring 2.5 a game.

Is it me or is this the streakiest season ever? I cannot remember so many teams with 5+ winning and losing streaks. I think it speaks volumes of the lack of starting pitching depth. When the Braves had three aces, long losing streaks were very rare, but now it's hard to find that kind of staff.

On behalf of Cardinals fans everywhere, we thank you for your collapse :)

When the Giants were 42-21 they easily had the best record in the majors. Then they went through two months of horrible baseball, losing to everyone, and at one point wouldn't have even qualified for the post season. Only a recent stretch of winning over the last several weeks has gotten them back in the wild card. An incredibly streaky season for them.

Is this what you meant to say?

That's exactly what I wanted to say :)

I will be looking at a new player starting tonight, Luis Tiant, followed by Omar Vizquel and Dave Parker. It's time to get this thread a-rollin'!

Maybe slide Dwight Evans in there after the others. I always felt he should have gotten in. And in the era he played 15 more Hr over a 20 year career would have done it. He wouldn't be first ballot, but eventually. His bad luck was the incredibly strong field in 99. Ryan, Brett, Yount, all first ballot, and Fisk on his first almost making it.

Steve B

This is an amazing thread...one of the many great reasons I enjoy Net54 so much.

Personally, I never could understand how Gil Hodges successful career as a player and a manger could not be included in the HOF.

Jeff

I agree Hodges should be in the Hall. Ted Simmons, as well. Bobby Grich, Lee Smith too. As for any other names mentioned in previous posts, I don't see it. Tiant, Parker, Vizquel, Minoso, were very good players, certainly not Hall of Famers. Murphy and Allen were excellent players, not HoF's. I appreciate defense ( Belanger ), however, if you are on the field it is expected you can catch a ball and throw it. No matter how much of a defensive wizard the player is, if the ball is not hit to you, you cannot do anything about the play. That is why the player needs to be able to hit. Scoring opportunities begin at the plate, rally's, but if a player can't hit, they become rally killers. So not only does the player make an out, they can hit into a double play causing two outs. Of all the major leaguers to play the game, very few are " overlooked " by the Hall.

Belanger
 

Hall of Fame
1988 BBWAA ( 3.7%)

I rest my case. This is just plain silly, IMO.

You know, let's do Dewey right now while I'm thinking about him. Coincidentally enough, I was looking at Dwight Evans' career numbers just a few nights ago, and I thought he was a player that clearly deserved consideration within our discussion here. I will do Luis Tiant tomorrow night.

Dwight Evans, right fielder
Dwight Michael Evans
Boston Red Sox (1972-1990)
Baltimore Orioles (1991)

http://sportsthenandnow.com/wp/wp-co...ans-RedSox.jpg

http://imageshack.com/a/img540/2352/FxbFIe.png

Dwight Evans is one of the stronger candidates from the pool of those players not already in Cooperstown. In fact, when I look at the 3.6% he got the last time he appeared on the ballot, in 1999, I am puzzled. Yes, the competition in 1999 was stiff, as three players were voted in-Nolan Ryan, George Brett and Robin Yount. And six other players on that ballot were eventually voted in by the BBWAA, as well. But surely Evans deserved to remain on the ballot at the very least, didn't he? How does a player with his credentials fail to garner the 5% required to remain on the ballot for future consideration?

Dwight's career numbers are listed above. They are impressive, especially when you consider the era he played in. So why was there so little support for one of Boston's favorite players?

Before we continue, a few things should be said. One, the advanced metrics used by today's statisticians were not available to the Baseball Writers in 1999. When considering why Dwight Evans fell off the ballot, we would need to consider his worthiness using the same evaluation methods the writers did some fifteen years ago. But to do so would simply be rehashing what has already been done. What we are seeking to do here is make a case for his induction based off of things that the writers might not have seen.

In order to proceed with this discussion, and accurately determine if Evans is worthy, I should share my methodology. I have alluded to some things in the past, but I have not done a good job of stating in detail how I look at a player.

Before I can start considering Dwight Evans' relevance from a historical context, the first thing I do is compare him against his peers. Specifically, I look at a player's primary position during their career, and compare the subject against the others playing that same position at the same time. Dwight Evans played in 2,606 games in his twenty season career. Of those, the vast majority was spent in right field, where he played 2,092 games. Evans played from 1972 to 1991. Now, Evans merits consideration for the Hall based on his career statistics alone. But his candidacy would be strengthened if it could be shown that he was one of the very best at his particular position during his career. We are doing this because we do not know how deep the position was during his career.

So, let's consider the right fielders in Evans' day. In order to get a large enough sample of players, I lower the game requirements to 750 games played. This isn't a perfect method, of course. I might be getting the early years of a player's career before they have hit their prime, meaning their numbers comparatively might be lower. I may also be catching the end of a player's career. But, if I raise the games played requirement, then more players will be excluded. So, I compromise.

A total of 26 Major Leaguers played at least 750 games in right field during Evans' career. How did Evans compare against his peers from an offensive standpoint? The one metric I come back to more than any other is OPS. It is not a perfect measurement, but it is a metric that can easily be understood, and it combines two primary elements of offense-getting on base, and hitting for power. A truly dynamic player will hit for power and get on base at a high rate. A high OPS means that the hitter provides value to an offense in multiple ways.

Of those 26 players, Evans ranked 5th in OPS, behind Reggie Smith, Darryl Strawberry, Jack Clark and Reggie Jackson. When you look at some of the players who are listed behind Evans, his numbers look even better. Among them are three Hall of Famers: Dave Winfield, Tony Gwynn and Andre Dawson.

http://imageshack.com/a/img538/2714/iB86L1.png

Anytime you beat out hitters of those caliber, you have strengthened your own position. Now, keep in mind, as it has astutely been pointed out to me in the past, OPS does not take several things into consideration, like base stealing, or defense. Dwight Evans was a power hitter, and a run producer. He was not a base stealer by any means. And many of the players on this list provided value to their team by stealing bases. Three stole over 300 bases in their career: Bobby Bonds, Claudell Washington and Andre Dawson. Tony Gwynn stole 246, and early in his career, he was a real base stealing threat, tallying 56 thefts in 1987, and 40 in 1989. Gwynn was also awarded 5 Gold Glove Awards for his defensive play in right field. Andre Dawson won 8 Gold Gloves. But here, too, Dwight Evans provides great value defensively. Evans won 8 Gold Gloves of his own. As Red Sox fans can attest, and as my research showed, Evans had one of the strongest throwing arms in the game. While the number or extra bases he saved with his arm cannot be quantified, it is worth mentioning that his defense was a great asset to the Red Sox, and it elevated his standing among the greats of the game that played during Evans' career.

Now, we compare Evans against the very best hitters during his era. This is where Dwight Evans will either shine, or fall short.

I mentioned before that Evans was a power hitter. While he only won one home run title in his career, in the strike-shortened 1981 season, hitting 375 home runs in any era is impressive. Again, it is important to consider the era that Evans played in. While Evans was a decent power hitter early in his career, he really found his power stroke as he approached age 30. He hit 22 to lead the American League in '81 as a 29 year old. Between 1982 and 1987, a six year span, he hit 175 home runs, an average of 29 per season, or 31 per 162 games played. In fact, his 162 game average over this 6 year span were outstanding: 111 runs, 34 doubles, 5 triples, 31 home runs and 99 RBI.

That's 70 extra base hits per 162 games played for a six year period, all while over 30 years of age.

The argument might be made that Evans benefited from playing his home games at Fenway Park. Evans, a right handed hitter, had the Green Monster in left. While it does appear that the Green Monster helped him accumulate more doubles at home (he hit 279 doubles at home, and 204 on the road), his home and road splits are very close when it comes to home runs. Evans hit only 21 more home runs at home than he did on the road (203 vs 182). If anything, it seems that Evans' power was fairly consistent regardless of where he played.

Before we compare Evans against the very best hitters from his era, some context is needed. Between the years 1972 and 1991, the entirety of Dwight Evans' career, there were a total of 29 40 home run seasons in the Major Leagues, including only 2 seasons of 50 or more home runs (George Foster's 52 in 1977, and Cecil Fielder's 51 in 1990). Between 1995 and 2014, the last twenty seasons, there have been 158 40 home run seasons, including 25 of 50 or more, 6 of 60 or more, and 2 seasons of 70 or more home runs (Mark McGwire hit 70 in 1998, and Barry Bonds hit 73 in 2001).

Baseball Reference.com, 40 home run seasons in the Major Leagues between the years 1972 and 1991.
Baseball Reference.com, 40 home run seasons in the Major Leagues between the years 1995 and 2014.

Let's now examine the very best hitters from Evans' era.

During Evans' career, there were 183 individual seasons where hitters with over 400 at bats reached a .900 OPS. Four of those seasons belonged to Evans, and as previously mentioned, he led the American League twice. Of those one 183 individual seasons, only 17 of them reached a 1.000 or better OPS. Comparatively, there were a whopping 545 individual seasons of .900 or higher OPS between 1995 and 2014, and 138 reached a level of 1.000 or higher.

It was a different game when Dwight Evans played. Numbers today are inflated. When Dwight Evans played, getting 385 home runs meant something. Look at it this way. By the time Dwight Evans had retired in 1992, many of the game's all-time greatest power hitters had gone before him. Aaron, Ruth, Mays, Mantle, Robinson, Killebrew. Their spectacular home run totals were etched in the annals of baseball history. But at his retirement, only 29 other men had ever hit more than Dwight Evans' 385 round-trippers. But going back to OPS again, how did he do against his peers. Not only the right fielders, but everybody in the game.

Between 1972 and 1991, there were 306 hitters to tally 3,000 or more at bats. Of those, only 20 hitters could top the .840 put up by Dwight Evans. Of those, 9 are Hall of Famers.

http://imageshack.com/a/img540/9005/T27Mh1.png

How about comparing Evans against his peers for the decade of the 1980s, which would represent the prime of his career, from age 28 to 37?

In the 80s, 140 hitters totaled 3,000 or more at bats. Dwight Evans, from that group, had the sixth best OPS in the Majors. Only Mike Schmidt, Wade Boggs, George Brett, Don Mattingly, and Pedro Guerrero were better in the 80s. He was better than Darryl Strawberry and Eddie Murray, Dale Murphy and Robin Yount. In fact, if you look at the Hall of Famers who played in that decade, he beat 16 of 'em.

In fact, if you look at the beginning of the live ball era, 1920, until the end of his career in 1992, his .840 OPS ranks 72nd. The man ahead of him on the list? Carl Yastrzemski at .843. The five men behind him on this list? Greg Luzinski, Don Mattingly, Dave Winfield, Roberto Clemente and Enos Slaughter.

Baseball Reference.com list of all-time highest OPS from 1920 to 1992.

Evans was top tier offensive force. Was he an elite power hitter? No. The 70s and 80s only truly had two elite power hitters, Mike Schmidt and Reggie Jackson. However, when you combine everything that Evans brought to the table, though, the 941 extra bases, the runs production, his 1,391 walks, he could do everything you'd want a right fielder to do offensively. He had power, and he had a high on base percentage. He wasn't fast, but defensively he made up for his average speed with a tremendously strong and accurate arm. Sounds to me like the prototypical right fielder.

Evans had the seventh most home runs in the 70s and 80s. And when you look at the men who had more home runs than him, which of those would you rather have batting fourth or fifth in your lineup? Schmidt and Jackson again, absolutely. Forgetting for just a minute Mike Schmidt's spectacular defensive abilities, he was the home run threat for the entirety of his career. Reggie was comparable, but his OPS was some 63 points lower. The next two men, Darrell Evans and Dave Kingman, brought the home run, and not much else. Kingman managed a paltry 608 walks in nearly 2,000 games. His .302 OBP was just terrible. Evans? Considering his .248 AVG, he had an outstanding OBP of .361, having walked some 1,600 times. Next is Jim Rice, a man who is in the Hall of Fame. I've felt for some time that Evans, not Rice, was the most complete Red Sox outfielder of the trio that started in the 70s (the other being Fred Lynn). My research of the net found this interesting analysis and discussion of just that. A comparison of RAA (runs above average) shows that Evans was not only better, but much better than Rice when all things are considered. Rice was a great hitter, and I am not disputing that. He had a three year run between 1977 and 1979 that would hold up well against many of the game's greatest sluggers. He hit .320 with a .972 OPS across those three seasons, totaling 620 hits, 124 home runs and 384 RBI. He won an MVP (1978), and finished 4th and 5th in the MVP vote the other two seasons. 1983 saw a return to form for Rice, who hit .305 with a .911 OPS, leading the AL with 39 home runs and 126 RBI. He had other very good seasons, too. In 1975, he was second in the Rookie of the Year Vote, and 3rd in the AL MVP (teammate and fellow rookie Fred Lynn won both) hitting .309 with 22 homers and 102 RBI. In 1986, he hit .324 and again topped 200 hits and 100 RBI. But Dwight Evans was a more complete package. He lacked some of the highs Rice achieved (never winning an MVP), but he was steady. And he had that presence in right field. You didn't run on him. But after reading the excellent article written by adarowski back in 2010, when some of the pomp is stripped away, Evans was really better. Of the three outfielders that made up what was arguably the best outfield of the 70s, the Hall of Famer might have been the low man on the totem poll.

Rice went to 8 All Star Games. Lynn 9. Evans went to only three. If he were elected, he would tie Robin Yount for fewest All Star Game appearances by a Hall of Famer in the All Star Game era. It seems that Evans did not get the recognition from fans when he played. He was third in the AL MVP race in 1981, that strike shortened season. He finished in the top 5 one other time. Again, under-appreciated could have been Evans' middle name.

When everything is considered, I could definitely see Evans as a Hall of Famer. Certainly not on the level of the immortals like Ruth, Aaron or Mays. But a second tier Hall of Famer? Absolutely. Evans has fallen victim to writers who have underappreciated him. History, for example, will remember Carlton Fisk's iconic Game 6 winning home run from the 1975 World Series. But rather unfairly, it seems to forget the spectacular catch and throw double play Dwight Evans made to close the Reds out in the top of the eleventh inning.

It seems that the Veteran's Committee owes Dwight Evans some serious consideration. He brought power to an era that power seemed in comparatively short supply. He was great right fielder, collecting 8 Gold Glove Awards. Only 7 other outfielders have ever won more.

With this, I will open it up to discussion. Feelings on Dwight Evans belonging in the Hall of Fame?

What's plain silly about it, Peter? That I'm suggesting one of the greatest defensive players in baseball history should be considered for the Hall of Fame? You don't have to agree, that's fine. But defense is half the game, and the greats of the game defensively are criminally underrepresented in the Hall, and in the game's annals. I think some of the players who were put in the Hall because of cronyism could be removed, and defensive stalwarts like Belanger could get in.

Defense is not half the game. PITCHING is half the game. Defense makes some difference, but to suggest it is as important as hitting reflects, in my opinion, a significant misperception. You can't tell me the difference between Belanger and an average shortstop is the same as the difference between Ruth and an average player, in terms of impact.

I never understood how Jim Rice got in and Dwight Evans basically wasn't considered. I would take Evans over Rice every time.

"You don't have to agree, that's fine."

And neither does anyone else except one guy who voted for him once. But don't let that deter you. :D

As a former pitcher at every level except professional, my experience taught me that only strikeouts, walks, HBPs, and wild pitchers are included in pitching...FAR less than 50% without those fielding the results of the all the other pitches - which amount to at least 2/3 of outs by almost every pitcher who ever lived. The only way I survived after my first shoulder injury was by learning to 'pitch' (as apposed to 'throwing' when my speed was enough to get me by) and depend on my teammates.

Even hitting is not fully 50% of the game. With base-running included, hitting makes up 50% of the game - called offense.

The other fifty-percent can, in truth be labeled defense includes pitching as it is in direct competition with the offense. IM(fairly experienced)O

Oh, you can disagree if you like as long as you understand that you are wrong.

That isn't the point. Most fly balls and grounders are going to be handled the same way by most professional players. it's only at the edges that the quality of a fielder makes a difference in my opinion. Tell me, would you take Mark Belanger (a great fielding, pathetic hitting shortstop) over Rogers Hornsby (a great hitting, but by some accounts weak fielding, second baseman)? I doubt it.

It wasn't the elbow
 

Koufax retired early so he would never have to face Belanger.

The sentence above contains one Hall of Famer. Your free to pick either one.

This discussion is making me a little verklempt.

How about Maury Wills? Talk amongst yourselves. :D:D:D

Appropriate use of the word verklempt in a sentence.

RGold moves on to the next round.

Hey Pete, What's up with " When driving through Kansas City do not stop " ?

Frank B you are too funny.

It's a good-natured jab at a certain member who, whilst on a trip down I-35, was invited to stop in KC by a certain other member and have BBQ and take in the Negro League museum, but declined the invitation. :D

Of course the anti-social bastard denies it LOL.

I've been called worse. Thank you Peter.

My attorney has instructed me to deny, deny, deny.

And here I was charitably keeping it anonymous.

So now that the cat is out of the bag, a ditty for you.

Everything's up to date in Kansas City
But Frank B our MD he wouldn't know.
They've got a fine museum and some finer barbeque
But Frank B our MD he wouldn't go.

I'll take Rice. Rice put his career numbers together in 14 years ( discounting 20 games his first season and 56 games his last season for 16 years total ) that took Evans almost 20 years to do. Rice wan't bad in the field, and was fun to watch at the plate.

Evans had a significantly better on base percentage and was more consistent, although of course he didn't have those several massive power years, just one I believe. A much better fielder too. Close call.

That was a really interesting look at his hitting. I really liked him as a player, but never considered him as more than a bit above average as a hitter. Consistently above average, but not amazing. (I got to see a lot of games, and Rice was amazing. Evans was simply dependable. )

I did think his defense was much more impressive. Enough to illustrate some of the challenges for defensive stats. He only led in RF assists three times mostly early in his career. Doubleplays as an outfielder first twice, second twice. But that misses how many times opposing players simply didn't try for an extra base. I could recall it wrong, but I think he's also among the few RF to throw a runner out at first on an apparent hit. The closest I've seen since is Ichiro who has about the same arm.

Some of the offensive stuff misses a bit that's also hard to put into data.
He didn't steal many bases. But the RedSox in the 70's and 80's were a team that really didn't steal much at all. Generally in the bottom 5 in the Al, and in the late 70's -mid 80's usually last.

One of the things that probably hurt his chances is that he was really not a flashy guy at all. Not much of a favorite with the press either.

The way the team handled his retirement was like most Boston players who retired around the same time very poor. Yes, it was really time to retire for him and Stanley and Rice. But after an entire career somewhere not being given the chance to bow out gracefully and simply having it announced around September that they wouldn't be signed for the next year was taken as the insult it was. There could have been some behind the scenes refusal to retire that the public never heard about, but essentially cutting them was the teams way of running them down so the fans would feel ok about them not coming back. Many of the players who left back then wouldn't have anything to do with the team for several years. Rice didn't even show up for Jim Rice/Bob Stanley day. (Stanley didn't want to either but did for the fans. The coolest moment was after the speeches they said wait a mimute there's one more thing. And tossed him a beach ball. As hed done so often with ones that left the stands he caught it and popped it with his pocketknife. Got a standing o for that but not for any of the speeches. :) ) No old timers games, no broadcast positions nothing. That they're back doing that sort of stuff is all the current owners doing.

Some of the press bought into that. So the attitude was that they stuck around long after they should have left.
Another example of the press fickleness was Rice, failing as he got older it was mentioned that he might need glasses. He did. And he got some. Really unstylish horrid glasses. But he was hitting again. And the articles were mostly about how silly his glasses looked so he abandoned them. And stopped hitting. A bit weak yes, but he just couldn't catch a break from them.

And those are the same guys who were voting -Or not voting- for their local guys. Probably not voting.

That was right around the time I realized it wasn't a hall of fame, wasn't a hall of stats, but a hall of popularity with the press as long as you had stats that were marginally acceptable. Bill Lee should be in based on quotable lines, but just didn't put up the numbers.

Steve B

This isn't meant to be an either or discussion, Peter. Nobody here is arguing the merits of "defense being more important than hitting". Rather, I am trying to demonstrate that players who performed at the highest level defensively should receive more consideration than I think they've gotten.

If you have a hitter that is good enough to knock the ball into the cheap seats, you can have Mark Belangers at every position, and it's not going to make a difference. Ok, so Mark Belanger is a bit of a reach given how useless he was with the bat. I will give that to you. I think my premise is sound, but I will acquiesce on my chosen champion. Somebody like Bill Mazerowski was a weak hitter, and he clearly made the Hall based on his defensive prowess. Yet he still managed 138 home runs and 853 RBIs, numbers which are downright Ruthian when compared to Belanger's meager offensive output. But how would you feel if I were talking about Keith Hernandez instead of Belanger? Same talking points. Unlike Belanger, Hernandez was a difference maker offensively. He wasn't a power hitter, but he could stroke the ball all over the field. He was the National League MVP in 1979 when he hit .344 with 210 hits. His average and 116 runs scored led the league. He hit a league leading 48 doubles, then chipped in 11 triples and 11 home runs. He drove in 105 runs, walked 80 times, and struck out 78. He was an All Star, and won his second career Gold Glove. His .930 OPS represented his career high.

Hernandez had a career .821 OPS, which is pretty good. He hit .300 or better six times, and .296 for his career. He ended up with 2,182 hits in his career. He scored and drove in over 1,000 runs each. He wasn't a base stealing threat, totaling only 98 stolen bases in 161 career attempts.

Hernandez managed to stay on the Hall of Fame ballot for nine seasons, but he never seriously challenged the 75% threshold needed for Cooperstown. His 10.8% in 1998 was as close as he would come; you really can't even use the word "close" with Hernandez' Hall of Fame chances.

If I am here as an advocate for those incredible defensive players who were overlooked by the Baseball Writers, Hernandez could be a good starting point. He was a very good hitter, and he was an elite first baseman.

Does the basic idea I am trying to get across hold any merit in your mind, Peter? I am only asking that the players who have been named as the best defensively at their position for many years to get a second look, because not where are metrics available that can quantify the contributions they made defensively in much the same way that the were considered offensively. Are the metrics perfect? No. I'm sure they will be improved over time, much like batting average has given way to on base percentage, which has given way to BAbip, etc. And Gold Gloves are not a perfect award, either. We've discussed that there have been some players that won them that really were not the best at their position that season. Favoritism comes into play with that award occasionally, too, it seems. But Keith Hernandez has won 11 Gold Gloves, the most by a first baseman in the league's history. And the Award has been handed out since 1957. That's now going on 57 years.

Keith Hernandez the hitter did not meet the criteria put forth by the individuals that made up the BBWAA. Might Keith Hernandez the hitter and first baseman now merit consideration to be elected by the Veteran's Committee.?

I have no issue with outstanding defensive ability kicking a borderline player over the line, or with unique defensive ability such as Ozzie (and perhaps Hernandez) kicking a solid offensive player but one who wouldn't have made it on offense alone over the line. So my issue was more with Belanger than with the general notion that defense can count. I'm not sure I consider Mazeroski a solid enough offensive player to have made it, though.

hitting v defense
 

In theory Pitchers only play defense and bring little to the table hitting wise or dont hit at all anymore....


Andy Petite for HOF....

Bill, I will agree and disagree with reference to your take on Hernandez. He was a very good first baseman, however, I do not know anyone who would refer to him as elite, as you did.

but WaJo was a better hitter than Belanger.

so was...Bob Gibson, Don Drysdale, Wes Ferrell, Catfish Hunter, Don Newcome, Bob Lemon, Warren Spahn...but definitely not Bob Buhl.

Belanger
 

Belanger was the best defensive shortstop I've ever seen, and could have been the greatest to ever play the position. Shouldn't the best of the best be at least considered for the HOF? I know he was a mainstay with the Orioles during the glory years; didn't matter to much what his hitting was he'd be playing short.

belanger
 

doesnt help belanger when ripken jr played as long as him a few years later and considered a better player...

I think any of us who follow baseball could name 25 shortstops we would rather have on our team than Belanger, and as a bonus we can exclude HoFr's. Begin at 1970. I'm going to bed now.....

Thank you for your post, Mark. See, I appreciate hearing from somebody that actually saw him play.

When I came up with the idea for this thread, it was not my intention to state that any player we would be discussing definitely belonged in the Hall of Fame. It was meant to be a discussion of players that we felt had been overlooked by the BBWAA, and deserved a second look by the Baseball Veterans Committee. Unfortunately, I got a little carried away when I wrote my first post about Belanger. I'd just read a write up about his defensive skills, and the people that were writing about him probably propped him up when it came to writing about Belanger's abilities.

It's difficult to know just how he matches up against the others that might be considered the best defensive shortstops to ever play the game, because as great as he may have been, defensive statistics have always lagged behind those for offense.

I think it's likely that Belanger is one of the ten best defensive shortstops to play the game. I never saw Belanger, Luis Aparicio, Phil Rizzuto, Bill Dahlen, or Rabbit Maranville play. I have seen Ozzie Smith, Omar Vizquel, Alan Trammell, etc.

How do we reconcile these from such different eras?

That doesn't say anything negative about Belanger. All it says is that Ripken was a hell of a shortstop, and may have been a better defensive shortstop than I have given him credit for. Belanger also worked with Ripken to help him improve his defense, so maybe some of the credit would go to him, too,

I've always felt he was good. But I don't know if I've consider him one of the greats defensively. I've felt that Ozzie Smith, Omar Vizquel, Alan Trammell and Barry Larkin were the best defensive shortstops from when I started watching baseball. Gary Templeton was pretty good, too, as was Ozzie Guillen.