eras committee candidates baseball HOF

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Before all this WAR got bandied about, who can honestly say they heard anybody mention Bobby Grich in any capacity for decades? Decades. Apart from infrequent paid autograph signings, his was a name that just never hit my radar, and I do this stuff full time. It's not exactly a benchmark of greatness when a guy is almost completely forgotten about when he played so recently. Then again, Harold Baines...same thing, minus the super high WAR. I can't wait for the next post-1980 ballot! Andy Van Slyke? Lloyd Moseby? George Bell? Nothing will elicit an element of surprise at this point.

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Before all this WAR got bandied about, who can honestly say they heard anybody mention Bobby Grich in any capacity for decades?

Rick Reuschel strongly agrees.

[FrankWakefield]

I agree with Alan about reading The Politics of Glory. First edition, please. For me it was a troubling read because I'm a Cardinals fan...

I also recommend The Historical Baseball Abstract, by Bill James, First edition!!!

And, on the heels of those two reads, look at The Fix is In, by Daniel Ginsburg. Rule 21. That's the rule about gambling on baseball.

I've praised these books before, several places. Maybe more than once, here. As for The Politics of Glory changing it's title, my thinking is that the newer title is more warm and fuzzy, less accusatory than the original title. I thought they should not have changed it. too.

[Peter_Spaeth]

https://www.baseballprojection.com/special/grich.htm

It's not just WAR.

Very in depth here:
https://www.cooperstowncred.com/bobb...ame-candidate/

[John1941]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Before all this WAR got bandied about, who can honestly say they heard anybody mention Bobby Grich in any capacity for decades? Decades. Apart from infrequent paid autograph signings, his was a name that just never hit my radar, and I do this stuff full time. It's not exactly a benchmark of greatness when a guy is almost completely forgotten about when he played so recently. Then again, Harold Baines...same thing, minus the super high WAR. I can't wait for the next post-1980 ballot! Andy Van Slyke? Lloyd Moseby? George Bell? Nothing will elicit an element of surprise at this point.

Because we know how infallible crowds are at assessing the true value of things.

Also, WAR rates Baines as almost exactly average for his career - his WAR is not exactly "super high."

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by John1941

Also, WAR rates Baines as almost exactly average for his career - his WAR is not exactly "super high."

Yes. I was saying exactly that.

[tod41]

Thanks to LaRussa and his buddies, the floodgates are open. With Baines in, the case can be made for so many players now. Dave Parker? What about Fred Lynn?

[packs]

Bobby Grich can get into the WAR HOF anytime he likes but it’s odd to portray him as one of the best players of all time. He was largely pedestrian in his career, no counting stats to speak of, and even the article about him seems to be steeped in WAR and then finding reasons to support his status vis-a-vis his WAR. I didn’t find it very compelling.

I just feel like he’s always been the equivalent of an underground band where guys like to see if you know who they are. Talked about like they were great. Then you put the album on and you get a lot of “you had to be there” stories because no one with fresh ears is impressed and even the guys who thought they liked them are having second thoughts.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Bobby Grich can get into the WAR HOF anytime he likes but it’s odd to portray him as one of the best players of all time. He was largely pedestrian in his career, no counting stats to speak of, and even the article about him seems to be steeped in WAR and then finding reasons to support his status vis-a-vis his WAR. I didn’t find it very compelling.

I just feel like he’s always been the equivalent of an underground band where guys like to see if you know who they are. Talked about like they were great. Then you put the album on and you get a lot of “you had to be there” stories because no one with fresh ears is impressed and even the guys who thought they liked them are having second thoughts.

But you make it sound like WAR is some irrelevant number, rather than a metric developed by experts to capture excellence that counting stats might not otherwise recognize. What's your issue with WAR? And it can't be, it must suck if it thinks Grich was great, that's circular.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But you make it sound like WAR is some irrelevant number, rather than a metric developed by experts to capture excellence that counting stats might not otherwise recognize. What's your issue with WAR? And it can't be, it must suck if it thinks Grich was great, that's circular.

At the very least, it would be nice if the new metric would more greatly compliment a player's previous recognition. If a player is almost entirely forgotten about when there are so many alive who saw him play, that speaks more to me than anything a new metric has to say. Yes, Grich won a few awards, but he never led the league with any dizzying stats. In fact, the only three instances where he did so was once in games played (who cares) and once in HR with a whopping 22. (Side note: 22 HR led the league?!). Oh, and WAR one season, a stat which had yet to be created. He retired nearly 40 years ago and it always felt like his name was lost to time. Even if he had been moderately superb, logic would dictate that he'd have been mentioned with exponentially more frequency. But all was quiet for so long until WAR came about, and BOOM, he's a legend?

[packs]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But you make it sound like WAR is some irrelevant number, rather than a metric developed by experts to capture excellence that counting stats might not otherwise recognize. What's your issue with WAR? And it can't be, it must suck if it thinks Grich was great, that's circular.

WAR is a good statistic when it complements other stats. So if you have a guy like Ken Griffey Jr. who you feel was a great player and you find he also has a high WAR, it's not surprising. You could compare someone you thought was as good as Griffey and see how their WARs compare, etc. That's a useful tool and metric for like players. Or comparing two MVP candidates for the year, etc.

What WAR isn't good for, in my opinion, is overriding all other aspects of the player. Bobby Grich has a high WAR and it's used to replace all conversation about what he actually did, which was bat 266 over his career with less than 2,000 hits and a 794 OPS. All very pedestrian numbers.

He's a deep cut people like to bring up for arguments sake. If you look at his similarity scores list it tells you a lot more than WAR.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by tod41

Thanks to LaRussa and his buddies, the floodgates are open. With Baines in, the case can be made for so many players now. Dave Parker? What about Fred Lynn?

I hear this claim, and LaRussa has helped some questionable players get in. But this is not the first time this has happened. Frank Frisch helped some players get in that were far, far less qualified.

The Hall with survive.

It is a flawed process, but it is still the best Hall in sports.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Yes. I was saying exactly that.

Oh gosh, I misread that. Mea culpa.