eras committee candidates baseball HOF

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

An honest, non-sarcastic question here. I don't purport to understand this WAR, even less so when it comes to my favorite player, Billy Cox, so forgive if my question seems ridiculous.

You will find multiple accounts from Cox' contemporaries that he was the best defensive third baseman in the league. Some even felt perhaps the best ever until Brooks Robinson came along. I even heard it directly from Brooks himself that he was of the same opinion (naturally, the ever-humble Brooks did not add the "until I came along"!). If his own contemporaries, in addition to the man who most people feel was the greatest say this, then why is Cox' WAR only 10.1? Yes, he was a light hitter. From what I have read here, however, being at the top of your game defensively should serve to boost up your WAR.

Looking at Cox' fielding stats, it certainly doesn't show him as a league leader. Could all of those people who would have had an educated opinion and witnessed him in action be as wrong about him as his pitiful WAR would suggest? I'd venture not. Single season WAR totals are awful. So, what wasn't he doing? Or, dare I say it, is WAR not an ironclad formula to fairly rate every single player?

Is it all in the fact that he wasn't prone to being played throughout entire seasons? It may be apples and oranges for all I know, but look at Riggs Stephenson. He's another player who had some fancy stats (of course, remembered more for his BA) but struggled with games played each season. Still, his WAR is 32.8.

[packs]

I don’t think my posts suggest I’d throw a fit, only that I think Grich is correctly omitted from consideration.

I was looking at Fox on BR and the voting on him. He got all the way up to 74.7% on his final ballot before entering the veterans pool. I wonder if that’s the closest anyone has come without getting in.

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

An honest, non-sarcastic question here. I don't purport to understand this WAR, even less so when it comes to my favorite player, Billy Cox, so forgive if my question seems ridiculous.

You will find multiple accounts from Cox' contemporaries that he was the best defensive third baseman in the league. Some even felt perhaps the best ever until Brooks Robinson came along. I even heard it directly from Brooks himself that he was of the same opinion (naturally, the ever-humble Brooks did not add the "until I came along"!). If his own contemporaries, in addition to the man who most people feel was the greatest say this, then why is Cox' WAR only 10.1? Yes, he was a light hitter. From what I have read here, however, being at the top of your game defensively should serve to boost up your WAR.

Looking at Cox' fielding stats, it certainly doesn't show him as a league leader. Could all of those people who would have had an educated opinion and witnessed him in action be as wrong about him as his pitiful WAR would suggest? I'd venture not. Single season WAR totals are awful. So, what wasn't he doing? Or, dare I say it, is WAR not an ironclad formula to fairly rate every single player?

Is it all in the fact that he wasn't prone to being played throughout entire seasons? It may be apples and oranges for all I know, but look at Riggs Stephenson. He's another player who had some fancy stats (of course, remembered more for his BA) but struggled with games played each season. Still, his WAR is 32.8.

I agree with a lot of what you've said. I believe WAR does not and can not include the total value of a player when compared to his peers. There are intangibles that can not be quantified. If you've participated in team sports, you know who you value as a teammate considering everything you see day in and day out about that teammate. Peer evaluations have value. Just like WAR, they help to give us a clearer picture of the value of a player to his team.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

I agree with a lot of what you've said. I believe WAR does not and can not include the total value of a player when compared to his peers. There are intangibles that can not be quantified. If you've participated in team sports, you know who you value as a teammate considering everything you see day in and day out about that teammate. Peer evaluations have value. Just like WAR, they help to give us a clearer picture of the value of a player to his team.

Yes.

Going by WAR alone, Cox would appear to possess none of the skill that was always lauded by the teammates whose stardom forever outshone him. He was quiet and unassuming both on and off the field. He spoke with his glove.

[sports-cards-forever]

The interesting thing about WAR is it compares players from the same era, but if all the 2B from that era are below average and one player is average, wouldn't they have a high WAR, but still not considered a Hall of Famer compared to the greats?

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by sports-cards-forever

The interesting thing about WAR is it compares players from the same era, but if all the 2B from that era are below average and one player is average, wouldn't they have a high WAR, but still not considered a Hall of Famer compared to the greats?

I thought the same thing a few days ago. It explains Grich sufficiently enough for me.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by sports-cards-forever

The interesting thing about WAR is it compares players from the same era, but if all the 2B from that era are below average and one player is average, wouldn't they have a high WAR, but still not considered a Hall of Famer compared to the greats?

That's exactly the point I was making with regard to Grich.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by sports-cards-forever

The interesting thing about WAR is it compares players from the same era, but if all the 2B from that era are below average and one player is average, wouldn't they have a high WAR, but still not considered a Hall of Famer compared to the greats?

The positional adjustment WAR makes for Grich is not substantially different from second baseman of other modern periods. Grich is given 5-6 runs of WAR per full season for being a second baseman. For 2023 and 2024, Marcus Semien is given 6 runs of WAR for being a second baseman and Gleyber Torres is given 4 and 5 runs. For the late 90s, Roberto Alomar is given 4 runs per full season for being a second baseman. For the 1950s, Bobby Avila is given 6-7 runs per full season for being a second baseman.

Grich's high WAR has little or nothing to do with his contemporaries being unusually incompetent. He's slightly helped compared to a few periods, but slightly hurt compared to others. WAR rates Grich highly because his batting was far above league average - a 125 OPS+ is extremely good for a second baseman of any era, as others have pointed out.