eras committee candidates baseball HOF

[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?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

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?

If you could show that WAR in general is a bad metric, that would make sense. If you can just point to one example where it rates highly a player not previously thought to rate high, then to me what's much more logical is to say this player was underappreciated in his day for the less than obvious things he did. What I don't think you can do is cherry pick. Oh WAR is great generally, and I agree with it except in this one case. Can it really be that it's a great metric but it just completely fails in one single case? Seems unlikely.

So again, I think one has to make out a case against WAR generally. For example, it overrates the value of walks. It overrates the importance of fielding. Etc.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

I am only saying that its application doesn't have any power in my mind to suddenly turn a somewhat above average player into a legend.

[G1911]

Does anyone know the full equation of WAR and its subcomponent other metrics whose calculations it feeds off of (without Googling it)? Seems to me people put a lot of faith (or a lot of hate) into a stat almost nobody really even understands.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

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?

We know that there are aspects of baseball that have been underappreciated in the past, which are now more understood. For example, probably because of how exciting they are, people overrated the value of a stolen base. Especially because they did not deduct the damage of a caught stealing. It is hard to get on base, so wiping out a baserunner and adding an out is a big deal. Gaining an extra base is comparatively a smaller deal. It is why a player needs to have roughly a 75% success rate to make stealing bases a net positive.

Similarly, walks were underrated, while hits were overrated. When the bases are empty, a single and a walk are practically the same thing. In essence OBP is a better indicator of value to a team that batting average.

Information like this exposed some players who were seen as far more valuable than they actually were. In particular, high batting average, low power players, and fast players whose stolen base rates were not elite. The biggest example might be Lou Brock, but it is also why Ichiro was an excellent player, but has a lower WAR than other star players who had a higher OBP.

Similarly, these ideas also shed light on players who were undervalued. Specifically, players who had a high OBP and lowish batting average. Bobby Grich is a primary example.

All that said, the formula for WAR was not 'given to Moses at Sinai'. It is a composite stat that makes assumptions. The positional adjustments are a major factor which can be confusing, and are why players at positions (like 2nd base) which traditionally have been weaker offensive positions will have a higher offensive WAR than players at other positions. Whether this should be this way (and certainly the degree that it is this way) is up for discussion.

Defensive metrics remain subject to many assumptions as well. Should we give a player benefit for positioning, or focus on how hard a play was? Has this changed over time given that players used to position themselves and now it is done from the dugout...

Lots to discuss. The conceptual ideas behind WAR aren't (to me) particularly difficult to follow, even if I never bothered to run through the exact math for each component. Here's the link to Baseball Reference's version...


https://www.baseball-reference.com/a...position.shtml

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

(Side note: 22 HR led the league?!).

Well, yeah. It was 1981. They played 2/3 of a regular schedule because of the strike.

[Tabe]

Grich, like Joe Morgan, benefits from playing in era when most of his position contemporaries stunk. In 1973, Grich led the AL in WAR, while hitting .251 with 12 homers and a 116 OPS+. By no stretch of the imagination was it a great - or even anything more than just pretty average - season. But because he had contemporaries putting up .300 slugging percentages, he gets an 8.3 WAR.

[Mungo Hungo]

Grich had 107 walks in 1973, and won a Gold Glove. He was also in the 2d year of a 3-year run of being in the top 20 of MVP voting. So even without the advanced stats, the baseball world of the time recognized that he had far better than a "pretty average" season. With today's perspectives, we can see that he had a superlative season.

[sports-cards-forever]

I like using All Star selections as a good barometer. Yes, sometimes it can be seen as a popularity contest, but I think it's a good indication of the player's ability compared to his peers. If he wasn't making all-star teams, it's hard to consider the player a hall of famer.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Mungo Hungo

Grich had 107 walks in 1973, and won a Gold Glove. He was also in the 2d year of a 3-year run of being in the top 20 of MVP voting. So even without the advanced stats, the baseball world of the time recognized that he had far better than a "pretty average" season. With today's perspectives, we can see that he had a superlative season.

+1

Grich had an on base percentage of .373 which was top 10 in the League and had one of the all-time best fielding seasons by a 2nd baseman, leading the league in assists (503), putouts (431), double plays (130) and fielding % (.995).

He also played every game of the season, which helped him pile up the WAR.

But in typical Tabe fashion, he only looks at Batting Average and HRs and dismisses everything else.

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

I don't follow. WAR is certainly based on what he ACTUALLY DID, what else could it be based on? You are assuming only counting stats reflect what he ACTUALLY DID. Again, WAR is not sacred, and while I have read the basics I don't purport to fully understand some of its nuances, but given that it seems to do a strong job of rating players overall, and that I agree with certain basic assumptions like walks are very important if not quite as good as singles, if it rates Grich high I am not going to automatically reject that assessment. Rather, my presumption would be that the traditional evaluations missed something important.

EDIT TO ADD I certainly find it more meaningful than some of the criteria people around here throw around, like great clubhouse leader, clutch hitter (devoid of statistical support), etc.

[packs]

If WAR is based on what Grich actually did then how do you explain the disparity between him and other 266 lifetime hitters with less than 2,000 and a career OPS under 800? There are a lot of those guys. Grich might be better than them but does that make him a HOFer?

His WAR has him ranked above Sandberg. Again, I think he's probably king among his similarity scores like Toby Harrah but I don't think Grich was better than Sandberg or a HOFer.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

If WAR is based on what Grich actually did then how do you explain the disparity between him and other 266 lifetime hitters with less than 2,000 and a career OPS under 800? There are a lot of those guys. Grich might be better than them but does that make him a HOFer?

I am not a WAR scholar, but among other things he gets credit for fielding, on base percentage, being a second baseman, and he played in an era where counting stats overall were generally lower.

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/20...second-baseman

[GaryPassamonte]

My main interest in baseball is the 19th century. I don't claim to know much about WAR, but it does seem to be unkind to players of the 19th century. How does WAR adjust for shorter seasons and a small ball style of play? Also, defensively, how are players who played before gloves were worn compared to later players who wore gloves. Walks were relatively uncommon, too. There are many other differences I could add. It just seems to me that it is virtually impossible to fairly evaluate players across eras when so many factors and strategies were different. There sure aren't many 19th century players on the top 100 WAR leader board.