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

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by cubsfan-budman

Any thoughts on Lee Smith's chances? Seems like a solid HOF prospect, but I think at this point, unlikely to get in.

I think with the ever increasing reliance on not only just closers, but bullpen specialists, like the setup pitcher, the 8th inning pitcher, closers, and non-starters in general will start getting more consideration from the BBWAA, or in Lee Smith's case, the Veteran Committee.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Smith make it one day. In fact, I think he has a good shot. It remains to be seen how the Veterans Committee views him, but he got as high as 50.6% from the Baseball Writers in 2012. He finished just below 500 saves in his career with 478, which is pretty outstanding. Remember, too, that he was the all-time saves leader from 1993 to 2006. He had 3 top 5 Cy Young finishes in a 4 season span later in his career, including a Cy Young runner up in 1991. He led the league in saves three times, but he was an elite closer for more than a decade. His save chances were somewhat limited early on because he spent the first part of his career with a Cubs team that didn't win a lot of games, save for the '84 season. In '84, Smith was 9-7, pitched in 69 games, and saved 33. He's 12th all-time in games pitched with 1,012, and even with Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman passing him, he's still third all-time in saves. The only guy I could see passing him anytime soon is Jonathan Papelbon. I don't see either Francisco Rodriguez or Joe Nathan having enough steam to reach 479.

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Bill- I always enjoy the depth of your research.

However, I am not completely comfortable with defensive statistics in general and dWAR specifically...since I found Gary Carter so far ahead of Johnny Bench on the career list.

Maybe I grossly underrated Carter, but Bench was a pioneer and his career was a watershed moment for the science of catching and even with a shorter career, I cannot get my mind around anyone, other than Ivan (Bench.1) having better career defensive value.

Bench was a pioneer, absolutely. One thing you need to remember though-Carter played over 300 games more as a catcher than Bench did. That's nearly two full seasons. Carter might not have been a better catcher, but he absolutely could have been a comparable defensive talent. Unfortunately, being the one that revolutionizes a position doesn't get them any extra points in their column. So, while Bench could have advanced things like defensive footwork, and pop rate, Carter could have equaled them.

I would love to be able to break down dWAR by position for those players who were used at more than one defensive position. Maybe there's a way to do that on Baseball Reference or Fangraphs that I'm missing. But here's one thing to keep in mind. If we compare Carter and Bench, and examine what their dWAR totals were at the end of their age 30 season, they're quite close:

Johnny Bench dWAR 18.6 (1967-1978)
Gary Carter dWAR 20.9 (1974-1984)

And the approximately 2 point difference can be traced to Gary Carter's 1983 season when he had a phenomenal 4.0 dWAR. Both Carter and Bench had six seasons with dWAR over 1.8 excluding Carter's 1983 season. Carter had one season with a below average dWAR, when he was -0.4 dWAR in 1988. Johnny Bench's defensive performance in 1982 hurt him, as he had a -1.5 rating. But by then, he wasn't catching. He was playing third base. 107 of the games he played that year were at third base. He played 8 more games at first base, and only one behind the plate. So while you might feel his 19.3 dWAR career total is low, keep in mind that he not only did not gain points for that season, but he lost a point and a half. So his career dWAR would have been more like a 20.8. And there's one other thing to keep in mind. Johnny Bench's dWAR is a combination of his time as catcher, as a third baseman, and a first baseman. 90.5% of Gary Carter's career games were behind the plate. 79.4% of Johnny Bench's games were behind the plate. I find nothing in these numbers that would make me think Gary Carter was a better catcher than Johnny Bench. The most accurate statement I could make would be that Johnny Bench and Gary Carter were in fact quite comparable talents defensively behind the plate. Carter won three Gold Gloves, and then Tony Pena, and then Benito Santiago took over as the best defensive catcher in the National League. While Johnny Bench was catcher, he was the best in the National League, hands down. He won ten Gold Gloves, and his place in the pantheon of great catchers is, in my mind, secure. He's the best combination of catcher offense and defense the game has ever seen.

Originally Posted by Runscott

Great job Bill, but no way is Belanger a HOF'er. Hitting is an integral part of the game, and he failed miserably in that area.

I respect your opinion, Scott. My last posts touches on my thinking as to why I feel he should be looked at again. Ultimately the Veterans Committee might maintain the status quo. But if the BBWAA can elect players based solely on their offensive prowess, then I feel the very greatest defensive players of all time at a given position should at least merit another review.

Originally Posted by Mountaineer1999

My vote is for League MVP, gold glove & silver slugger winning 7 time All Star Dave Parker.

Parker will definitely be looked at. Clemente's heir in right field was a damned fine baseball player, and he had some great years in the late 70s. That's when I became a fan of the Pirates. I was young, but there was something about Pops and the Family that just drew me in. We were lucky enough to have the Cobra in Milwaukee for one season, in 1990. He was an All Star, and he won a Silver Slugger by hitting .289 with 21 home runs and 92 RBI for the Brew Crew. That was his best season in the AL.

Thanks to all you guys, Howard and Bear Bailey, too. I'll start working on my next player selection. This one is coming from Ken. We're going to look at the Cuban Comet, Minnie Minoso.