WAR Question:

[Peter_Spaeth]

Good analysis on Grich, but the disparity between the sabremetric numbers and the voters' perception is pretty staggering. Can you be a great player and nobody knows it? I guess.

As for walk vs. hit that line is specious. Consider the dramatic difference with a runner on second. A hit likely scores a run, a walk just makes it first and second. The only time they are the same is with bases empty.

[clydepepper]

Bill- While I have great respect for your extensive research, you make my brain hurt.

[nat]

"As for walk vs. hit that line is specious. Consider the dramatic difference with a runner on second. A hit likely scores a run, a walk just makes it first and second. The only time they are the same is with bases empty."

That's why you also have to look at slugging percentage. Grich does well there too. (I mean, of course he does, he led the league in HRs!)

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Bill- While I have great respect for your extensive research, you make my brain hurt.

Thanks, Raymond. And sorry.

Just wait until I have a better command of Sabermetrics. Then I'll make your head explode.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Good analysis on Grich, but the disparity between the sabremetric numbers and the voters' perception is pretty staggering. Can you be a great player and nobody knows it? I guess.

As for walk vs. hit that line is specious. Consider the dramatic difference with a runner on second. A hit likely scores a run, a walk just makes it first and second. The only time they are the same is with bases empty.

Oh, I agree, Peter. The single and walk are only the same where OBP are considered. But if a guy gets a hit with a runner on, he gets the benefit of an RBI. If he gets a single, his SLG increases.

I don't know why there's a disparity between how voters that watched Grich play valued him, and how modern metrics value him. Is it possible that the baseball writers from that era were too focused on the Triple Crown stats? .300, 25 HR, 100 RBI sounds great, and better than a guy that hits .280, 17 HR 80 RBI. But if the .300 hitter has 25 doubles, 3 triples and 43 walks, while the .280 hitter has 40 doubles, 7 triples and 72 walks, obviously the Triple Crown stats don't tell the whole story.

I think this is a prime example of why the Veteran's Committee exists. Baseball thinking changes over time. Evaluation methodology evolves, and guys that didn't get a fair shake can get another look. I think guys like Ted Simmons, Dave Parker and Bobby Grich will ultimately benefit from this.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Oh, I agree, Peter. The single and walk are only the same where OBP are considered. But if a guy gets a hit with a runner on, he gets the benefit of an RBI. If he gets a single, his SLG increases.

I don't know why there's a disparity between how voters that watched Grich play valued him, and how modern metrics value him. Is it possible that the baseball writers from that era were too focused on the Triple Crown stats? .300, 25 HR, 100 RBI sounds great, and better than a guy that hits .280, 17 HR 80 RBI. But if the .300 hitter has 25 doubles, 3 triples and 43 walks, while the .280 hitter has 40 doubles, 7 triples and 72 walks, obviously the Triple Crown stats don't tell the whole story.

I think this is a prime example of why the Veteran's Committee exists. Baseball thinking changes over time. Evaluation methodology evolves, and guys that didn't get a fair shake can get another look. I think guys like Ted Simmons, Dave Parker and Bobby Grich will ultimately benefit from this.

Parker doesn't do so well on the sabremetrics as I recall.