An evidence based discussion about the players who've been overlooked for Cooperstown

[Peter_Spaeth]

Defense is not half the game. PITCHING is half the game. Defense makes some difference, but to suggest it is as important as hitting reflects, in my opinion, a significant misperception. You can't tell me the difference between Belanger and an average shortstop is the same as the difference between Ruth and an average player, in terms of impact.

[BearBailey]

I never understood how Jim Rice got in and Dwight Evans basically wasn't considered. I would take Evans over Rice every time.

[Peter_Spaeth]

"You don't have to agree, that's fine."

And neither does anyone else except one guy who voted for him once. But don't let that deter you.

[KCRfan1]

Originally Posted by BearBailey

I never understood how Jim Rice got in and Dwight Evans basically wasn't considered. I would take Evans over Rice every time.

I'll take Rice. Rice put his career numbers together in 14 years ( discounting 20 games his first season and 56 games his last season for 16 years total ) that took Evans almost 20 years to do. Rice wan't bad in the field, and was fun to watch at the plate.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Evans had a significantly better on base percentage and was more consistent, although of course he didn't have those several massive power years, just one I believe. A much better fielder too. Close call.

[steve B]

That was a really interesting look at his hitting. I really liked him as a player, but never considered him as more than a bit above average as a hitter. Consistently above average, but not amazing. (I got to see a lot of games, and Rice was amazing. Evans was simply dependable. )

I did think his defense was much more impressive. Enough to illustrate some of the challenges for defensive stats. He only led in RF assists three times mostly early in his career. Doubleplays as an outfielder first twice, second twice. But that misses how many times opposing players simply didn't try for an extra base. I could recall it wrong, but I think he's also among the few RF to throw a runner out at first on an apparent hit. The closest I've seen since is Ichiro who has about the same arm.

Some of the offensive stuff misses a bit that's also hard to put into data.
He didn't steal many bases. But the RedSox in the 70's and 80's were a team that really didn't steal much at all. Generally in the bottom 5 in the Al, and in the late 70's -mid 80's usually last.

One of the things that probably hurt his chances is that he was really not a flashy guy at all. Not much of a favorite with the press either.

The way the team handled his retirement was like most Boston players who retired around the same time very poor. Yes, it was really time to retire for him and Stanley and Rice. But after an entire career somewhere not being given the chance to bow out gracefully and simply having it announced around September that they wouldn't be signed for the next year was taken as the insult it was. There could have been some behind the scenes refusal to retire that the public never heard about, but essentially cutting them was the teams way of running them down so the fans would feel ok about them not coming back. Many of the players who left back then wouldn't have anything to do with the team for several years. Rice didn't even show up for Jim Rice/Bob Stanley day. (Stanley didn't want to either but did for the fans. The coolest moment was after the speeches they said wait a mimute there's one more thing. And tossed him a beach ball. As hed done so often with ones that left the stands he caught it and popped it with his pocketknife. Got a standing o for that but not for any of the speeches. ) No old timers games, no broadcast positions nothing. That they're back doing that sort of stuff is all the current owners doing.

Some of the press bought into that. So the attitude was that they stuck around long after they should have left.
Another example of the press fickleness was Rice, failing as he got older it was mentioned that he might need glasses. He did. And he got some. Really unstylish horrid glasses. But he was hitting again. And the articles were mostly about how silly his glasses looked so he abandoned them. And stopped hitting. A bit weak yes, but he just couldn't catch a break from them.

And those are the same guys who were voting -Or not voting- for their local guys. Probably not voting.

That was right around the time I realized it wasn't a hall of fame, wasn't a hall of stats, but a hall of popularity with the press as long as you had stats that were marginally acceptable. Bill Lee should be in based on quotable lines, but just didn't put up the numbers.

Steve B

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Defense is not half the game. PITCHING is half the game. Defense makes some difference, but to suggest it is as important as hitting reflects, in my opinion, a significant misperception. You can't tell me the difference between Belanger and an average shortstop is the same as the difference between Ruth and an average player, in terms of impact.

As a former pitcher at every level except professional, my experience taught me that only strikeouts, walks, HBPs, and wild pitchers are included in pitching...FAR less than 50% without those fielding the results of the all the other pitches - which amount to at least 2/3 of outs by almost every pitcher who ever lived. The only way I survived after my first shoulder injury was by learning to 'pitch' (as apposed to 'throwing' when my speed was enough to get me by) and depend on my teammates.

Even hitting is not fully 50% of the game. With base-running included, hitting makes up 50% of the game - called offense.

The other fifty-percent can, in truth be labeled defense includes pitching as it is in direct competition with the offense. IM(fairly experienced)O

Oh, you can disagree if you like as long as you understand that you are wrong.

[Peter_Spaeth]

That isn't the point. Most fly balls and grounders are going to be handled the same way by most professional players. it's only at the edges that the quality of a fielder makes a difference in my opinion. Tell me, would you take Mark Belanger (a great fielding, pathetic hitting shortstop) over Rogers Hornsby (a great hitting, but by some accounts weak fielding, second baseman)? I doubt it.

[frankbmd]

Koufax retired early so he would never have to face Belanger.

The sentence above contains one Hall of Famer. Your free to pick either one.

[RGold]

This discussion is making me a little verklempt.

How about Maury Wills? Talk amongst yourselves.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by RGold

This discussion is making me a little verklempt.

How about Maury Wills? Talk amongst yourselves.

Appropriate use of the word verklempt in a sentence.

RGold moves on to the next round.

[KCRfan1]

Hey Pete, What's up with " When driving through Kansas City do not stop " ?

Frank B you are too funny.

[the 'stache]

This isn't meant to be an either or discussion, Peter. Nobody here is arguing the merits of "defense being more important than hitting". Rather, I am trying to demonstrate that players who performed at the highest level defensively should receive more consideration than I think they've gotten.

If you have a hitter that is good enough to knock the ball into the cheap seats, you can have Mark Belangers at every position, and it's not going to make a difference. Ok, so Mark Belanger is a bit of a reach given how useless he was with the bat. I will give that to you. I think my premise is sound, but I will acquiesce on my chosen champion. Somebody like Bill Mazerowski was a weak hitter, and he clearly made the Hall based on his defensive prowess. Yet he still managed 138 home runs and 853 RBIs, numbers which are downright Ruthian when compared to Belanger's meager offensive output. But how would you feel if I were talking about Keith Hernandez instead of Belanger? Same talking points. Unlike Belanger, Hernandez was a difference maker offensively. He wasn't a power hitter, but he could stroke the ball all over the field. He was the National League MVP in 1979 when he hit .344 with 210 hits. His average and 116 runs scored led the league. He hit a league leading 48 doubles, then chipped in 11 triples and 11 home runs. He drove in 105 runs, walked 80 times, and struck out 78. He was an All Star, and won his second career Gold Glove. His .930 OPS represented his career high.

Hernandez had a career .821 OPS, which is pretty good. He hit .300 or better six times, and .296 for his career. He ended up with 2,182 hits in his career. He scored and drove in over 1,000 runs each. He wasn't a base stealing threat, totaling only 98 stolen bases in 161 career attempts.

Hernandez managed to stay on the Hall of Fame ballot for nine seasons, but he never seriously challenged the 75% threshold needed for Cooperstown. His 10.8% in 1998 was as close as he would come; you really can't even use the word "close" with Hernandez' Hall of Fame chances.

If I am here as an advocate for those incredible defensive players who were overlooked by the Baseball Writers, Hernandez could be a good starting point. He was a very good hitter, and he was an elite first baseman.

Does the basic idea I am trying to get across hold any merit in your mind, Peter? I am only asking that the players who have been named as the best defensively at their position for many years to get a second look, because not where are metrics available that can quantify the contributions they made defensively in much the same way that the were considered offensively. Are the metrics perfect? No. I'm sure they will be improved over time, much like batting average has given way to on base percentage, which has given way to BAbip, etc. And Gold Gloves are not a perfect award, either. We've discussed that there have been some players that won them that really were not the best at their position that season. Favoritism comes into play with that award occasionally, too, it seems. But Keith Hernandez has won 11 Gold Gloves, the most by a first baseman in the league's history. And the Award has been handed out since 1957. That's now going on 57 years.

Keith Hernandez the hitter did not meet the criteria put forth by the individuals that made up the BBWAA. Might Keith Hernandez the hitter and first baseman now merit consideration to be elected by the Veteran's Committee.?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That isn't the point. Most fly balls and grounders are going to be handled the same way by most professional players. it's only at the edges that the quality of a fielder makes a difference in my opinion. Tell me, would you take Mark Belanger (a great fielding, pathetic hitting shortstop) over Rogers Hornsby (a great hitting, but by some accounts weak fielding, second baseman)? I doubt it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I have no issue with outstanding defensive ability kicking a borderline player over the line, or with unique defensive ability such as Ozzie (and perhaps Hernandez) kicking a solid offensive player but one who wouldn't have made it on offense alone over the line. So my issue was more with Belanger than with the general notion that defense can count. I'm not sure I consider Mazeroski a solid enough offensive player to have made it, though.