eras committee candidates baseball HOF

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by packs

Since Bobby Grich retired, can you think of a second baseman elected to the HOF for his glove?

Mazeroski who is a near analogue of Frank White and nobody is talking about putting White in.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Mazeroski who is a near analogue of Frank White and nobody is talking about putting White in.

Let's not open the can of worms that is Mazeroski. Maris is more deserving for his season in the sun as opposed to a moment in time, but he doesn't belong, either.

[paul]

Mazeroski wasn't elected for his home run. He was elected for being the greatest fielding second baseman of all time.

[Mike D.]

A Look At The 1965 Topps Luis Tiant Rookie Card

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by paul

Mazeroski wasn't elected for his home run. He was elected for being the greatest fielding second baseman of all time.

If you truly believe this, you might be the only person who does. He was elected for that home run.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tabe

If you truly believe this, you might be the only person who does. He was elected for that home run.

Evidence?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Evidence?

Every article announcing his election - at least the half dozen I checked - all mention the home run before his defense is every mentioned.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Every article announcing his election - at least the half dozen I checked - all mention the home run before his defense is every mentioned.

So it was the highlight of his career, doesn't show that's WHY he was voted in, natural a journalist would mention it. Bobby Thomson isn't in. Maris isn't in, a much bigger deal in his moment of glory than Mazeroski.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Let's not open the can of worms that is Mazeroski. Maris is more deserving for his season in the sun as opposed to a moment in time, but he doesn't belong, either.

Agreed. I mean if I'm starting a team and I can have either Frank White or Bill Mazeroski I'm not mad, but not for the Hall.

[HistoricNewspapers]

WAR certainly has many faults. However, Grich and Sandberg are not that far off each other one way or another. As stated above, WAR represents what the player does over his position in his league. Grich played in more years where offense was down(especially at his position).

OPS+ is similar in regard to measuring against your own league average(but not position).

Grich has a 125 OPS+
Sandberg has a 116 OPS+

Sandberg did that in about 1,000 more career plate appearances so then if you add that it closes the gap a little, but still when compared vs their league average Grich would still be superior hitting wise.

If you want to ignore the league context, then lifetime:

Grich .794 OPS
Sandberg .795 OPS

So ignoring the league run scoring environment, you see that they are about as equal as you can be hitting wise.

Keep in mind that OPS+ and WAR do account for home field hitting advantage. Sandberg did hit in the friendly confines and it wasn't called that for nothing in that time period. Run scoring certainly got a boost from Wrigley.

Sandberg lifetime:

Home OPS .853
Road OPS .738

That is a stark difference. So if someone wants to ignore any park adjustments from WAR or OPS+, then it would be equally right to state that without Wrigley that Sandberg really is a .738 hitter compared to Grich's .795

Grich for his career played in some pitchers parks and his lifetime home/road are .796 to .793. Usually home hitting is higher than road for hitters.

So if one wants to just ignore any of the more accurate measurements that put Grich and Sandberg in the same level, then again, it is just as fair to say without Wrigley that Sandberg does not even compare to Grich.

Now, keep in mind, just looking at home/road splits isn't the only step. OPS+ takes further steps to make those park adjustments more reasonable, and even with that, Grich is sill superior.

There is more to the equation such as baserunning and fielding of course, but the hitting is the lions share of the value(considering they were both superior fielders).

In the end, you need to look further. If you look at the more accurate stats that represent the value(including baserunning and men on base hitting).

Sandberg has a lifetime Win Probability Added of 27.7 wins above average
Grich is 19.9

Sandberg has a lifetime Run Expectancy of 325 runs above average.
Grich is 227.

That 100 run difference in run expectancy really is what separates Sandberg and Grich, and that includes all components of offense and park factors.

Defensively I would give the edge to Sandberg too.

In the end, Sandberg is superior, but it isn't surprising to put Grich in the same level until you look at the more advanced and accurate Run Expectancy numbers that push Sandberg to a higher offensive level to go with his defense advantage.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

If they are so similar, why was/is one a household name and the other nearly forgotten? They were contemporaries.

Even without all the number crunching, Grich's contemporaries/managers/coaches/umpires as well as sportswriters/commentators would have realized at the time what you say regarding his home parks being disadvantageous for him. Therefore, one might wonder where any of these people have been over the past 30+ years to champion his induction into the Hall. After all, so many baseball lifers are not in need of a new metric to recognize true talent, especially retroactively! It makes you wonder how many minds of those who spent great portions of time on the diamond with one of these previously unheralded WAR Whizzes would be changed based on such numbers. I just don't see that happening. No matter how open they may be to it, they would likely rely upon their memories first and foremost. They lived it.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

Keep in mind that OPS+ and WAR do account for home field hitting advantage. Sandberg did hit in the friendly confines and it wasn't called that for nothing in that time period. Run scoring certainly got a boost from Wrigley.

I agree that Grich and Sandberg are closer than most people think. But I think OPS+ does control for ballparks.

See this: https://www.mlb.com/glossary/advance...-slugging-plus

On-base Plus Slugging Plus (OPS+)
Definition

OPS+ takes a player's on-base plus slugging percentage and normalizes the number across the entire league. It accounts for external factors like ballparks. It then adjusts so a score of 100 is league average, and 150 is 50 percent better than the league average.

For example, Miguel Cabrera's .895 OPS in 2014 was 50 percent better than the MLB average after being adjusted for league and park factors. As a result, his OPS+ was 150.

The formula
100 x (OBP/lgOBP + SLG/lgSLG - 1)

Why it's useful:
OPS does not tell you how much a player was affected by factors such as his home ballpark's dimensions or altitude. OPS+ attempts to adjust for those factors to give you a context-neutral number.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I agree that Grich and Sandberg are closer than most people think. But I think OPS+ does control for ballparks.

See this: https://www.mlb.com/glossary/advance...-slugging-plus

On-base Plus Slugging Plus (OPS+)
Definition

OPS+ takes a player's on-base plus slugging percentage and normalizes the number across the entire league. It accounts for external factors like ballparks. It then adjusts so a score of 100 is league average, and 150 is 50 percent better than the league average.

For example, Miguel Cabrera's .895 OPS in 2014 was 50 percent better than the MLB average after being adjusted for league and park factors. As a result, his OPS+ was 150.

The formula
100 x (OBP/lgOBP + SLG/lgSLG - 1)

Why it's useful:
OPS does not tell you how much a player was affected by factors such as his home ballpark's dimensions or altitude. OPS+ attempts to adjust for those factors to give you a context-neutral number.

Yes it indeed does account for home parks as I mentioned in there.