HOF results

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not according to what I am looking at. Matty blows them away using JAWS and is still ahead using WAR.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_P.shtml

or

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_P.shtml

Thx Peter. The listing I was looking at had Matty's WAR at 95.3 versus the 101 in your reference? Maybe it was outdated.....

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Thx Peter. The listing I was looking at had Matty's WAR at 95.3 versus the 101 in your reference? Maybe it was outdated.....

Yeah he had a couple of good seasons recently.

No clue, actually.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yeah he had a couple of good seasons recently.

No clue, actually.

Pretty sure Matty could slip out of the grave today and out pitch at least 2/5 of the 2016 Pirates rotation.

Tom C

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Pretty sure Matty could slip out of the grave today and out pitch at least 2/5 of the 2016 Pirates rotation.

Tom C

Reminds me of when Cobb (allegedly) was asked in the 1950s how he would do against today's pitching. He said he thought he would hit about .275. He was then asked was the pitching really that much better than in his time, and he said, well I am almost 70.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

That was an excellent article breaking down the case for Grich in layman's terms. Basically he is one of the top 8 offensive second basemen of all time, and one of the top 10 defensively of all time. The only second baseman better than Grich on both offense and defense is Nap Lajoie. That's it.

OPS+ is a quantitative stat. Nothing to do with someone's perception of value going into a complicated formula. OPS+ is what it is. Grich's career OPS+ is 125. Only four second basemen with 8,000 or more career plate appearances have a better career OPS+. Lajoie, Rogers Hornsby, Eddie Collins and Joe Morgan.

But you are basing it on where he batted in the lineup during his best year?

Do you see the problem here?

Tom C

Tom, I know you're using stats, but I'm looking more at common sense. Grich, you are not even the most valuable player on this team, maybe the 4th most valuable at best, not including pitchers. Yet you're the only one who deserves to be looked at for inclusion into the Hall of Fame. Doesn't that just seem strange to you?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by glchen

Tom, I know you're using stats, but I'm looking more at common sense. Grich, you are not even the most valuable player on this team, maybe the 4th most valuable at best, not including pitchers. Yet you're the only one who deserves to be looked at for inclusion into the Hall of Fame. Doesn't that just seem strange to you?

If he were an outfielder we wouldn't be having this discussion. He was a middle infielder where the standards are different.

[glchen]

That's where it vexes me, especially for 2nd basemen. You don't have the arm or athleticism for SS. And you don't have much of a bat either, but you're decent on defense, just not as good as our SS. Yet we need to meet our quota for 2nd basemen in the HOF. This and catcher are like where players who can't hit try to get a position on the team. (e.g., if Piazza played 1B, I doubt he'd be in the HOF.)

[Topps206]

Please, please, please next year be the year Raines gets it.

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Where Grich really stands out offensively is power and patience. He slugged .424 while the league slugged .384. His OBP was .371 while the league’s was .324. That is a huge difference. Add it up and Grich’s OPS was .794 against the league’s .707. That’s how you get an OPS+ of 125. Steve Garvey’s OPS+, for example, was 117. Jim Rice was 128. Dave Parker was 121. That’s how good an offensive player Grich was. He just did it with plate discipline and power during a power-depressed era. That’s how you fly under the radar.

I don't have a horse in this race regarding Grich/Kent but if you're comparing Grich's OPS against the league, you should do so to his batting average as well for a broader scope. Most years you'll find that he wasn't that much better (and sometimes worse) than the league average. League average for middle infielders, I'm sure he was better. But that's one thing about Kent - his average was significantly higher than the rest of the league more times than not and against middle infielders, I'm sure it was even higher.

I know you're talking mostly power at this point, but it's still something I think you have to consider if you're comparing Grich to the rest of the league offensively. I say that as someone who thinks Grich was undervalued as a power hitting middle infielder, too.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Cozumeleno

I don't have a horse in this race regarding Grich/Kent but if you're comparing Grich's OPS against the league, you should do so to his batting average as well for a broader scope. Most years you'll find that he wasn't that much better (and sometimes worse) than the league average. League average for middle infielders, I'm sure he was better. But that's one thing about Kent - his average was significantly higher than the rest of the league more times than not and against middle infielders, I'm sure it was even higher.

I know you're talking mostly power at this point, but it's still something I think you have to consider if you're comparing Grich to the rest of the league offensively. I say that as someone who thinks Grich was undervalued as a power hitting middle infielder, too.

That is why Grich gets so overlooked (one of seceral reasons really). His batting average wasn't anything special, even compared to league averages. Where he separates is on base percentage plus the power. He got on base at a much higher clip than league average. He hit for far more power than league average. Amd he likely should have won 7 gold gloves on defense instead of the four that he actually won.

His 1973 season may have been the best defensively for a second baseman ever. That year his OPS+ was 116, which was the worst that it was over a five year period.

Tom C

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

That is why Grich gets so overlooked (one of seceral reasons really). His batting average wasn't anything special, even compared to league averages. Where he separates is on base percentage plus the power. He got on base at a much higher clip than league average. He hit for far more power than league average. Amd he likely should have won 7 gold gloves on defense instead of the four that he actually won.

His 1973 season may have been the best defensively for a second baseman ever. That year his OPS+ was 116, which was the worst that it was over a five year period.

Tom C

I agree - I think if you look at him as a power hitter, he has a lot more value. Kent hit for both power average, which was what made him unique. Offensively, he fit the profile of a corner outfielder. Defensively, he was certainly not Grich's equal and there's no question that Grich is the more underrated of the two.

[cardsfan73]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

I just did. Bobby Grich was a better hitter than Jeff Kent.

He was also a better hitter than Ryne Sandberg and Roberto Alomar. And Frankie Frisch.

Tom C

I am curious how Grich would be considered a better hitter than those three.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by glchen

That's where it vexes me, especially for 2nd basemen. You don't have the arm or athleticism for SS. And you don't have much of a bat either, but you're decent on defense, just not as good as our SS. Yet we need to meet our quota for 2nd basemen in the HOF. This and catcher are like where players who can't hit try to get a position on the team. (e.g., if Piazza played 1B, I doubt he'd be in the HOF.)

He did have the athleticism and the arm to play SS. He was recognized as an outstanding SS in the minor leagues and played the position for the Orioles when he first made the majors where he was still considered outstanding. He was only moved to 2B to accommodate Mark Belanger who probably ranks w/Ozzie Smith as the GOAT defensively at the position. As it turned out Grich was even better at 2B than he was at SS so he remained there for the rest of his career.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by howard38

He did have the athleticism and the arm to play SS. He was recognized as an outstanding SS in the minor leagues and played the position for the Orioles when he first made the majors where he was still considered outstanding. He was only moved to 2B to accommodate Mark Belanger who probably ranks w/Ozzie Smith as the GOAT defensively at the position. As it turned out Grich was even better at 2B than he was at SS so he remained there for the rest of his career.

Belanger came up years before Grich. I think he was injured Grich's rookie year which is why Grich played some SS. Once Belanger was healthy, Grich was moved.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Belanger came up years before Grich. I think he was injured Grich's rookie year which is why Grich played some SS. Once Belanger was healthy, Grich was moved.

Belanger wasn't injured in 1972 (at least he wasn't on the DL) but he hit so poorly that Earl Weaver benched him frequently. Grich played most of his minor league career at SS and had progressed to the point that he was named the IL's best defensive IF as well as being the league's best hitter in 1971. So it was a logical move to try him in place of Belanger in 1972. It might have stayed that way but 2B Davey Johnson was so bad in 1972 that he was traded, making room for Grich and making Belanger the regular SS again.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by howard38

Belanger wasn't injured in 1972 (at least he wasn't on the DL) but he hit so poorly that Earl Weaver benched him frequently. Grich played most of his minor league career at SS and had progressed to the point that he was named the IL's best defensive IF as well as being the league's best hitter in 1971. So it was a logical move to try him in place of Belanger in 1972. It might have stayed that way but 2B Davey Johnson was so bad in 1972 that he was traded, making room for Grich and making Belanger the regular SS again.

Oh he played only 100 games as opposed to 150 for all the years before and all the years after so I just assumed it was injury. Yeah the guy couldn't hit although he somehow managed to throw a couple of pretty good years in there along with all the awful ones. He had a .287 a .270 and a .266 along with a slew of absolute dogs.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by cardsfan73

I am curious how Grich would be considered a better hitter than those three.

Career WAR

Bobby Grich 70.9
Frankie Frisch 70.4
Ryne Sandberg 67.5
Roberto Alomar 66.8

Career OPS+

Bobby Grich 125
Roberto Alomar 116
Ryne Sandberg 114
Frankie Frisch 110

Offensive Runs Above Average Career

Roberto Alomar 272.5
Bobby Grich 254.5
Frankie Frisch 223.9
Ryne Sandberg 178.5

wRC+ Career (100 is league average...this stat is both league and park adjusted similar io OPS+)

Bobby Grich 129
Roberto Alomar 118
Ryne Sandberg 115
Frankie Frisch 112

Runs Above Replacement Career (Frisch greatly aided here by career longevity versus the others on this list)

Frankie Frisch 769.8
Bobby Grich 648.1
Roberto Alomar 638.3
Ryne Sandberg 582.3



That's why.

I could keep going.

Tom C

[howard38]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Oh he played only 100 games as opposed to 150 for all the years before and all the years after so I just assumed it was injury. Yeah the guy couldn't hit although he somehow managed to throw a couple of pretty good years in there along with all the awful ones. He had a .287 a .270 and a .266 along with a slew of absolute dogs.

Go figure. If he was anywhere near those numbers for the rest of his career he might be a hall of famer. Yet he never even reached .230 in any other season.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

So, you ignored my question about you changing stats to fit your narrative, and you ask me if I EVEN KNOW how WAR works? Are you serious?? Kent has a .290 lifetime average, is the all-time HR leader for second baseman and is what, 3rd or 4th in career RBI's for the position? Those are actual stats. And we were all around to watch him play. His career wasn't something so long ago in the past that we have to develop a stat like WAR to figure out if he was good or not. He was a monster at second base and the guy belongs in the Hall of Fame.

+1

[cammb]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Unless I am missing someone obvious, Bill Freehan was the best offensive catcher of the 60s. Jim Fregosi or Bert Campaneris were the best offensive shortstops (same caveat). It's too narrow a criterion.

I feel Elston Howard was a little better.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

It's so funny reading your constant passive aggressive BS. But what's even funnier is how you so obviously think you're always the smartest person in the room.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Couldn't agree more. This theoretical crap is for jock sniffers.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by cammb

Couldn't agree more. This theoretical crap is for jock sniffers.

Jock sniffers? Really? What is that supposed to mean? That people who believe in advanced metrics don't know what they are talking about because they never played the game or something? That seems a bit insulting and prejudiced. It is certainly untrue in my situation.

Had I said "Thank goodness these idiot dinosaurs who are too stupid or too lazy to try to understand advanced metrics are either dying off or being thrown off the BBWAA voting rolls so we can get some people in there who actually get it".... would you feel a bit insulted? It isn't how I feel, but it would be the same thing as what you just said.

Tom C

[Peter_Spaeth]

Tom, I'm just glad Daren found a friend.

[frankbmd]

Got the ITCH, Wear a GRICH,




For if you've got the ROT, It helps a LOT.



Guaranteed to have a better SCENT than a KENT or your money back

[cammb]

Lol

[cammb]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Jock sniffers? Really? What is that supposed to mean? That people who believe in advanced metrics don't know what they are talking about because they never played the game or something? That seems a bit insulting and prejudiced. It is certainly untrue in my situation.

Had I said "Thank goodness these idiot dinosaurs who are too stupid or too lazy to try to understand advanced metrics are either dying off or being thrown off the BBWAA voting rolls so we can get some people in there who actually get it".... would you feel a bit insulted? It isn't how I feel, but it would be the same thing as what you just said.

Tom C

Insulted? Not at all. That's your opinion. You know mine.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by AndrewJerome

Very interesting thread. Comparing real world perceptions of player value (i.e watching guys play) to pure statistical analysis is something modern MLB upper management seems to have trouble balancing, and this thread is no different.

Very true. I was never all that impressed with Kent, but given all the guys here whose opinion is that Kent should be in the HOF, I checked out his stats. To me, they still don't add up to HOF:

• His hitting was above average, but certainly not great.
• He was MVP once, but other than that never received more than 6 votes.
• He never won a gold glove at his position, so if you are going to argue that he was a 'great' hitter compared to other second basemen, you'd also have to admit that he wasn't as great of a fielder as other second-basemen - even those playing at the same time he was;i.e-compare his hitting to those second basemen who were all-around HOF'ers.
• While his 162 game numbers are above average, he only played 140 games or more in 7 seasons, so not a great fielder and no iron man.

I think he easily makes the 'Hall of above average'