Chick Hafey - HOF...Why?

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The JAWS stat takes into account both peak years and career, equally weighted, so it is a very favorable metric to a guy like Hafey who had a short career. The result? 57th best left fielder of all time. And if we use WAR7 alone he moves all the way up to 54th. Oh wait you don't like WAR. I guess you know best, Bill. Perhaps you should write a book and Bill James and the SABRmetricians can move over.

It's not that I dislike WAR at all. Firstly, there's no universal formula for it. Secondly, applying WAR to players that were in the Majors 80 years ago is an exercise in futility. Chick Hafey stole 70 bases in his career. There's no record how many times he was caught. What is that? An incomplete statistic.

How are they calculating something like defensive war? How do they determine range factor, or ultimate zone rating? They don't have any spray charts telling them where hitters made their hits and outs. What does all this mean? That the statistics are incomplete and inaccurate.

[howard38]

Jackie Robinson didn't need any surge of emotion to win the MVP in 1949. He was arguably the best player in the NL in 1949 w/his only competition coming from Stan Musial and Ralph Kiner (he beat them both in WAR) and his team won the pennant. That is the very definition of an MVP.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by howard38

Jackie Robinson didn't need any surge of emotion to win the MVP in 1949. He was arguably the best player in the NL in 1949 w/his only competition coming from Stan Musial and Ralph Kiner (he beat them both in WAR) and his team won the pennant. That is the very definition of an MVP.

Kiner hit .310 with 54 home runs and 127 RBI. He also walked 117 times, had a .658 SLG, a 1.089 OPS, and an OPS + of 186. He led the NL in HR, RBI, walks, SLG, OPS, OPS +.

Robinson led the NL in batting at .342 and in stolen bases with 37. He only scored 6 more runs than Kiner.

Musial hit .338 with 36 home runs and 123 RBI. He led the NL with 207 hits, 41 doubles, 13 triples, a .438 OBP and 382 total bases. He scored 128 runs, more than Robinson.

Robinson was the best player in the National League? Not in my opinion.

The Dodgers had Campanella, Hodges, Snider and Furillo, and the Dodgers won the pennant. That's why Robinson won the MVP.

I challenge you to name a single player on the Pittsburgh Pirates in 1949 besides Kiner without looking. That's why he finished fourth in the MVP vote.

Same thing with the Cardinals. Name another player on the Cardinals in 1949. You might get a lucky guess. I will tell you this. After Musial's 36 home runs, the second highest home run total on the team was 13.

What's my point? Musial and Kiner carried their teams. Robinson didn't have to.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Kiner hit .310 with 54 home runs and 127 RBI. He also walked 117 times, had a .658 SLG, a 1.089 OPS, and an OPS + of 186. He led the NL in HR, RBI, walks, SLG, OPS, OPS +.

Robinson led the NL in batting at .342 and in stolen bases with 37. He only scored 6 more runs than Kiner.

Musial hit .338 with 36 home runs and 123 RBI. He led the NL with 207 hits, 41 doubles, 13 triples, a .438 OBP and 382 total bases. He scored 128 runs, more than Robinson.

Robinson was the best player in the National League? Not in my opinion.

The Dodgers had Campanella, Hodges, Snider and Furillo, and the Dodgers won the pennant. That's why Robinson won the MVP.

I challenge you to name a single player on the Pittsburgh Pirates in 1949 besides Kiner without looking. That's why he finished fourth in the MVP vote.

Same thing with the Cardinals. Name another player on the Cardinals in 1949. You might get a lucky guess. I will tell you this. After Musial's 36 home runs, the second highest home run total on the team was 13.

What's my point? Musial and Kiner carried their teams. Robinson didn't have to.

I will grant you that had Musial had teammates as good as Robinson's the Cards would have won the pennant and Musial probably would have been the MVP. I'm not arguing that Robinson was necessarily better that year just that there is a defendable case that he was. Robinson was a better baserunner and more valuable fielder than Musial and much better in both cases than Kiner and there are sabermetric stats that support him being the best in the league in 1949. The fact of the matter is that Robinson was the best player on a team that won the pennant by a single game and as such he did not need a "surge of emotion" to win the MVP award.

I too am enjoying the debate. Keep 'em coming.

Btw, w/o checking I knew that Musial's teammates were not bad. Two of the other seven starting position players were hall of famers in their prime, Enos Slaughter and Al Schoendienst.

[the 'stache]

By the way, Peter and everybody else, I just wanted to say I am thoroughly enjoying this exercise. I may be playing a little bit of a contrarian here, but sometimes it's good to challenge the way we look at things.

Cheers!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

By the way, Peter and everybody else, I just wanted to say I am thoroughly enjoying this exercise. I may be playing a little bit of a contrarian here, but sometimes it's good to challenge the way we look at things.

Cheers!

Yeah these are always interesting debates, absolutely. And of course I am being a bit of a statistical purist just for the hell of it too. Certainly there are intangibles as well -- I just don't think Hafey has them.

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

By the way, Peter and everybody else, I just wanted to say I am thoroughly enjoying this exercise. I may be playing a little bit of a contrarian here, but sometimes it's good to challenge the way we look at things.

Cheers!

Hey...I want to thank you for BEING contrarian...it's creating great dialogue and you ALMOST have me convinced he belongs. Given the statistical arguments you have made there is at minimum a justification. I like the comment that no one wants to begrudge a man his honor once he gets in, I certainly agree with that, it still bothers me though that there are quite a few players throughout the years with similar or better careers that will never be considered (and most shouldn't). The cronyism, good ole' boy situation that got him in stinks.


I do like the comment I received in a PM..."throw a Yankee uniform on him and your thread doesn't exist..."

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Harliduck

I do like the comment I received in a PM..."throw a Yankee uniform on him and your thread doesn't exist..."

To that I have to reply "Don Mattingly says hi". Oh, "and Bernie Williams is on line two."

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

To that I have to reply "Don Mattingly says hi". Oh, "and Bernie Williams is on line two."

I do believe Mattingly will get in eventually...not so sure about Williams. Don Mattingly to me is the epitome of player the Veterans Committee should be protecting.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

It's not that I dislike WAR at all. Firstly, there's no universal formula for it. Secondly, applying WAR to players that were in the Majors 80 years ago is an exercise in futility. Chick Hafey stole 70 bases in his career. There's no record how many times he was caught. What is that? An incomplete statistic.

How are they calculating something like defensive war? How do they determine range factor, or ultimate zone rating? They don't have any spray charts telling them where hitters made their hits and outs. What does all this mean? That the statistics are incomplete and inaccurate.

I'll straight up go ahead and say, even fairly modern defensive WAR stats are a joke and completely arbitrary.

As a Yankee fan, watching the difference on the entire attitude of the infield defense, when Don Mattingly was playing first base and Jason Giambi playing first base, was like comparing Brooks Robinson to Butch Hobson at 3rd base.

Yet, defensive WAR statistics on Baseball Reference seem to indicate they are fairly similar to each other on the field, and that Mattingly was actually a negative factor as a fielder, despite also being ranked at or near the top in range factor and every other defensive category as a 1st baseman, throughout his career.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

I'll straight up go ahead and say, even fairly modern defensive WAR stats are a joke and completely arbitrary.

As a Yankee fan, watching the difference on the entire attitude of the infield defense, when Don Mattingly was playing first base and Jason Giambi playing first base, was like comparing Brooks Robinson to Butch Hobson at 3rd base.

Yet, defensive WAR statistics on Baseball Reference seem to indicate they are fairly similar to each other on the field, and that Mattingly was actually a negative factor as a fielder, despite also being ranked at or near the top in range factor and every other defensive category as a 1st baseman, throughout his career.

Yeah, Dave. I think that's pretty absurd. If I were looking for a "total package" first baseman in the last thirty years, I'd have a hard time choosing between Keith Hernandez and Don Mattingly. They're certainly the best two defensive first baseman in my lifetime.

Mattingly is a lot like Hafey. While I think Don's highs were a little higher, his career, too, got curtailed by injury. In much the same way illness and poor vision robbed Hafey of his power (he still remained a .300 hitter, though), Mattingly's back robbed him of his power.

I will go to my grave saying that Don Mattingly is one of the best pure hitters I've ever seen. He was Tony Gwynn with power. He and Boggs tussled for a while, but with Boggs, I always felt like he had to work harder. He's a great hitter, but there was always something about Don's swing that was just beautiful. He coiled up like a snake, bent down and forward just a little over the plate, then just exploded.