HOF results

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by glchen

Right, the issue is that stats like WAR and JAWS (which is based on WAR) is not like traditional statistics, in that they are based on someone's opinion on the weighting that goes into the formulas not to mention who knows what else. In addition, these newer stats become skewed in the age of PED users. You are comparing players to other players around the league, but if those players are using, and their stats go up, then the non-users WAR goes down in comparison.

The other thing is that WAR is trying era-adjust, so that you can compare players across the years. That is like saying, in every year, there have to be a few players that are HOF-worthy. It does not take into account that there may be valleys and spikes across the eras, where there may be a bunch of really great players in one decade, but a dearth of them in another.

Any metric has its limitations, for sure. But that said, would you not agree that purely using counting stats can be very skewed? Regarding your last point, I guess it's possible some 40s players get the benefit of being high relative to a mediocre average given the depleting effect of WWII, but other than that, can we really say that as a whole, "baseball" overall was better in one decade than another?

Let's ask it another way, if you look at the JAWS/WAR rankings (or the related Baseball Reference metrics), how many instances do you really see where you say, that's insane?

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Any metric has its limitations, for sure. But that said, would you not agree that purely using counting stats can be very skewed? Regarding your last point, I guess it's possible some 40s players get the benefit of being high relative to a mediocre average given the depleting effect of WWII, but other than that, can we really say that as a whole, "baseball" overall was better in one decade than another?

Let's ask it another way, if you look at the JAWS/WAR rankings (or the related Baseball Reference metrics), how many instances do you really see where you say, that's insane?

Well, when I see players like Bobby Grich with such high WAR's, I think that's insane. Seriously, I was taking a look at one of his highest WAR year, and in that year, Grich batted 6th in his lineup. So, we're saying that his manager thought he was the 4th best hitter on his team, at best, yet this guy is somehow a marginal HOFer, while the 3-4-5 batters on the team (like Brian Downing) are like jokes when considering them of the Hall? Just the common sense of this doesn't ring true to me.

[Peter_Spaeth]

http://www.hallofstats.com/articles/...l-of-fame-case

[glchen]

Peter, most of that article uses elements of what goes into WAR, which as I've said has flaws. For example, if we use WAR, Cy Young (WAR of 170) destroys Walter Johnson (WAR of 152) for same number of years played. And Sandy Koufax has about the same WAR as Urban Shocker for about the same number of years played.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by glchen

Well, when I see players like Bobby Grich with such high WAR's, I think that's insane. Seriously, I was taking a look at one of his highest WAR year, and in that year, Grich batted 6th in his lineup. So, we're saying that his manager thought he was the 4th best hitter on his team, at best, yet this guy is somehow a marginal HOFer, while the 3-4-5 batters on the team (like Brian Downing) are like jokes when considering them of the Hall? Just the common sense of this doesn't ring true to me.

That was an excellent article breaking down the case for Grich in layman's terms. Basically he is one of the top 8 offensive second basemen of all time, and one of the top 10 defensively of all time. The only second baseman better than Grich on both offense and defense is Nap Lajoie. That's it.

OPS+ is a quantitative stat. Nothing to do with someone's perception of value going into a complicated formula. OPS+ is what it is. Grich's career OPS+ is 125. Only four second basemen with 8,000 or more career plate appearances have a better career OPS+. Lajoie, Rogers Hornsby, Eddie Collins and Joe Morgan.

But you are basing it on where he batted in the lineup during his best year?

Do you see the problem here?

Tom C

[glchen]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

That was an excellent article breaking down the case for Grich in layman's terms. Basically he is one of the top 8 offensive second basemen of all time, and one of the top 10 defensively of all time. The only second baseman better than Grich on both offense and defense is Nap Lajoie. That's it.

OPS+ is a quantitative stat. Nothing to do with someone's perception of value going into a complicated formula. OPS+ is what it is. Grich's career OPS+ is 125. Only four second basemen with 8,000 or more career plate appearances have a better career OPS+. Lajoie, Rogers Hornsby, Eddie Collins and Joe Morgan.

But you are basing it on where he batted in the lineup during his best year?

Do you see the problem here?

Tom C

Tom, I know you're using stats, but I'm looking more at common sense. Grich, you are not even the most valuable player on this team, maybe the 4th most valuable at best, not including pitchers. Yet you're the only one who deserves to be looked at for inclusion into the Hall of Fame. Doesn't that just seem strange to you?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by glchen

Tom, I know you're using stats, but I'm looking more at common sense. Grich, you are not even the most valuable player on this team, maybe the 4th most valuable at best, not including pitchers. Yet you're the only one who deserves to be looked at for inclusion into the Hall of Fame. Doesn't that just seem strange to you?

If he were an outfielder we wouldn't be having this discussion. He was a middle infielder where the standards are different.

[glchen]

That's where it vexes me, especially for 2nd basemen. You don't have the arm or athleticism for SS. And you don't have much of a bat either, but you're decent on defense, just not as good as our SS. Yet we need to meet our quota for 2nd basemen in the HOF. This and catcher are like where players who can't hit try to get a position on the team. (e.g., if Piazza played 1B, I doubt he'd be in the HOF.)

[howard38]

Originally Posted by glchen

That's where it vexes me, especially for 2nd basemen. You don't have the arm or athleticism for SS. And you don't have much of a bat either, but you're decent on defense, just not as good as our SS. Yet we need to meet our quota for 2nd basemen in the HOF. This and catcher are like where players who can't hit try to get a position on the team. (e.g., if Piazza played 1B, I doubt he'd be in the HOF.)

He did have the athleticism and the arm to play SS. He was recognized as an outstanding SS in the minor leagues and played the position for the Orioles when he first made the majors where he was still considered outstanding. He was only moved to 2B to accommodate Mark Belanger who probably ranks w/Ozzie Smith as the GOAT defensively at the position. As it turned out Grich was even better at 2B than he was at SS so he remained there for the rest of his career.

[ejharrington]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Any metric has its limitations, for sure. But that said, would you not agree that purely using counting stats can be very skewed? Regarding your last point, I guess it's possible some 40s players get the benefit of being high relative to a mediocre average given the depleting effect of WWII, but other than that, can we really say that as a whole, "baseball" overall was better in one decade than another?

Let's ask it another way, if you look at the JAWS/WAR rankings (or the related Baseball Reference metrics), how many instances do you really see where you say, that's insane?

Keith Hernandez having a lifetime defensive WAR of 0.6.

Adam Jones being rated an average or below average center fielder.

Defensive WAR is not something that can be relied on.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

Keith Hernandez having a lifetime defensive WAR of 0.6.

Adam Jones being rated an average or below average center fielder.

Defensive WAR is not something that can be relied on.

yeah I am not convinced yet about defensive stats

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Any metric has its limitations, for sure. But that said, would you not agree that purely using counting stats can be very skewed? Regarding your last point, I guess it's possible some 40s players get the benefit of being high relative to a mediocre average given the depleting effect of WWII, but other than that, can we really say that as a whole, "baseball" overall was better in one decade than another?

Let's ask it another way, if you look at the JAWS/WAR rankings (or the related Baseball Reference metrics), how many instances do you really see where you say, that's insane?

Peter, while I am a fan of WAR/JAWS metrics, from a pitcher's perspective, Phil Niekro and Bert Blyleven being rated ahead of Christy Mathewson is absolutely ludicrous....beyond insane. Yet, as with any rating xystem, there has to be flaws and the Matty ranking is certainly one of them....LOL!!!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Peter, while I am a fan of WAR/JAWS metrics, from a pitcher's perspective, Phil Niekro and Bert Blyleven being rated ahead of Christy Mathewson is absolutely ludicrous....beyond insane. Yet, as with any rating xystem, there has to be flaws and the Matty ranking is certainly one of them....LOL!!!

Not according to what I am looking at. Matty blows them away using JAWS and is still ahead using WAR.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_P.shtml

or

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_P.shtml

[Peter_Spaeth]

Where Grich really stands out offensively is power and patience. He slugged .424 while the league slugged .384. His OBP was .371 while the league’s was .324. That is a huge difference. Add it up and Grich’s OPS was .794 against the league’s .707. That’s how you get an OPS+ of 125. Steve Garvey’s OPS+, for example, was 117. Jim Rice was 128. Dave Parker was 121. That’s how good an offensive player Grich was. He just did it with plate discipline and power during a power-depressed era. That’s how you fly under the radar.

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Where Grich really stands out offensively is power and patience. He slugged .424 while the league slugged .384. His OBP was .371 while the league’s was .324. That is a huge difference. Add it up and Grich’s OPS was .794 against the league’s .707. That’s how you get an OPS+ of 125. Steve Garvey’s OPS+, for example, was 117. Jim Rice was 128. Dave Parker was 121. That’s how good an offensive player Grich was. He just did it with plate discipline and power during a power-depressed era. That’s how you fly under the radar.

I don't have a horse in this race regarding Grich/Kent but if you're comparing Grich's OPS against the league, you should do so to his batting average as well for a broader scope. Most years you'll find that he wasn't that much better (and sometimes worse) than the league average. League average for middle infielders, I'm sure he was better. But that's one thing about Kent - his average was significantly higher than the rest of the league more times than not and against middle infielders, I'm sure it was even higher.

I know you're talking mostly power at this point, but it's still something I think you have to consider if you're comparing Grich to the rest of the league offensively. I say that as someone who thinks Grich was undervalued as a power hitting middle infielder, too.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Cozumeleno

I don't have a horse in this race regarding Grich/Kent but if you're comparing Grich's OPS against the league, you should do so to his batting average as well for a broader scope. Most years you'll find that he wasn't that much better (and sometimes worse) than the league average. League average for middle infielders, I'm sure he was better. But that's one thing about Kent - his average was significantly higher than the rest of the league more times than not and against middle infielders, I'm sure it was even higher.

I know you're talking mostly power at this point, but it's still something I think you have to consider if you're comparing Grich to the rest of the league offensively. I say that as someone who thinks Grich was undervalued as a power hitting middle infielder, too.

That is why Grich gets so overlooked (one of seceral reasons really). His batting average wasn't anything special, even compared to league averages. Where he separates is on base percentage plus the power. He got on base at a much higher clip than league average. He hit for far more power than league average. Amd he likely should have won 7 gold gloves on defense instead of the four that he actually won.

His 1973 season may have been the best defensively for a second baseman ever. That year his OPS+ was 116, which was the worst that it was over a five year period.

Tom C

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

That is why Grich gets so overlooked (one of seceral reasons really). His batting average wasn't anything special, even compared to league averages. Where he separates is on base percentage plus the power. He got on base at a much higher clip than league average. He hit for far more power than league average. Amd he likely should have won 7 gold gloves on defense instead of the four that he actually won.

His 1973 season may have been the best defensively for a second baseman ever. That year his OPS+ was 116, which was the worst that it was over a five year period.

Tom C

I agree - I think if you look at him as a power hitter, he has a lot more value. Kent hit for both power average, which was what made him unique. Offensively, he fit the profile of a corner outfielder. Defensively, he was certainly not Grich's equal and there's no question that Grich is the more underrated of the two.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not according to what I am looking at. Matty blows them away using JAWS and is still ahead using WAR.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_P.shtml

or

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_P.shtml

Thx Peter. The listing I was looking at had Matty's WAR at 95.3 versus the 101 in your reference? Maybe it was outdated.....

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Thx Peter. The listing I was looking at had Matty's WAR at 95.3 versus the 101 in your reference? Maybe it was outdated.....

Yeah he had a couple of good seasons recently.

No clue, actually.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yeah he had a couple of good seasons recently.

No clue, actually.

Pretty sure Matty could slip out of the grave today and out pitch at least 2/5 of the 2016 Pirates rotation.

Tom C

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Pretty sure Matty could slip out of the grave today and out pitch at least 2/5 of the 2016 Pirates rotation.

Tom C

Reminds me of when Cobb (allegedly) was asked in the 1950s how he would do against today's pitching. He said he thought he would hit about .275. He was then asked was the pitching really that much better than in his time, and he said, well I am almost 70.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Any metric has its limitations, for sure. But that said, would you not agree that purely using counting stats can be very skewed? Regarding your last point, I guess it's possible some 40s players get the benefit of being high relative to a mediocre average given the depleting effect of WWII, but other than that, can we really say that as a whole, "baseball" overall was better in one decade than another?

Right, I do think that WAR has its uses as another stat when used in conjunction with other stats. For example, if you have a player like Dave Kingman with a lot of home runs, you also have to take a look at his Mendoza line batting average. I think a lot of folks consider WAR the "best" stat because it consolidates a lot of others. However, I think it should be used in with other stats and obvious common sense. This was like the BCS in college football before where they had computers do the rankings. Obviously, no matter how much you tried to input into the system, there were still issues with what the computers came up with.