Surprisingly low WAR

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Tommy Davis 20.4 in a LONG career and half of it came in two seasons.
Bill Buckner 15.0

I like the surprisingly High WARs. 60 is a reasonable shot at the HOF in most cases:

Kevin Brown 67.8
Willie Randolph 65.9
Reggie Smith 64.5
Willie Davis 60.7
Bobby Abreu 60.2

[Tomi]

Can someone please explain Dante Bichette's 1.2 WAR from this year? Just can't understand how it can be that low with those numbers.
NL MVP Voting

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Tomi

Can someone please explain Dante Bichette's 1.2 WAR from this year? Just can't understand how it can be that low with those numbers.
NL MVP Voting

It's primarily because dWAR hates him, the park factor, and that he didn't walk at all. Walks are heavily valued in bWAR.

I think this is a good example of it being a little silly even for a modern player. It's hard to argue that Reggie Sandes was 5X as valuable that year.

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by Tomi

Can someone please explain Dante Bichette's 1.2 WAR from this year? Just can't understand how it can be that low with those numbers.

Things mentioned above as well as (and because of) his extreme home/road splits.

31 of his 40 homers came at home and his slash on the road was .300/.329/.473

He also played terrible D that year. It was never good, but 1995 was his first year in LF as a regular and it did not go well.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Tommy Davis 20.4 in a LONG career and half of it came in two seasons.
Bill Buckner 15.0

I like the surprisingly High WARs. 60 is a reasonable shot at the HOF in most cases:

Kevin Brown 67.8
Willie Randolph 65.9
Reggie Smith 64.5
Willie Davis 60.7
Bobby Abreu 60.2

Buckner is astonishing. He had 2700 hits. WTF.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Buckner is astonishing. He had 2700 hits. WTF.

He had a career OPS+ of 100. He basically never walked so his OBP was .319 and he had very little power. He was a poor defensive player by the metrics used. And he spent much of his career at 1B which is a position that generally has strong hitters.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

He had a career OPS+ of 100. He basically never walked so his OBP was .319 and he had very little power. He was a poor defensive player by the metrics used. And he spent much of his career at 1B which is a position that generally has strong hitters.

LOL don't need metrics to evaluate his defense. Little roller up along first... I can't believe he came back to Boston in 1990.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

LOL don't need metrics to evaluate his defense. Little roller up along first... I can't believe he came back to Boston in 1990.

I was born in 1987, so I did not experience his career, and I know that at times the defensive metrics disagree. That said, I've heard, "and the ball gets by Buckner" many, many times.

[puckpaul]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

LOL don't need metrics to evaluate his defense. Little roller up along first... I can't believe he came back to Boston in 1990.

Stop. That loss wasnt his fault. The relief pitching sucked.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

Stop. That loss wasnt his fault. The relief pitching sucked.

Nightmarish.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I like the surprisingly High WARs. 60 is a reasonable shot at the HOF in most cases:

Kevin Brown 67.8
Willie Randolph 65.9
Reggie Smith 64.5
Willie Davis 60.7
Bobby Abreu 60.2

I grew up with the Bronx Zoo Yankees of the late 1970s. In addition to Randolph, there was Graig Nettles with 67.9 career WAR.

Added in Edit: His more famous teammate on those teams, Reggie Jackson, had career WAR of 74. Reggie was certainly Hall-worthy, but you would think he would be separated from Nettles by more than 6.1 WAR.

[Musashi]

You'd think with all those hits, Pete Rose would be higher than 79.5. dWAR didn't hate him, but it did actively dislike him. Look at his base running numbers though, and apparently Charlie hustled himself into a lot of extra outs.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

I grew up with the Bronx Zoo Yankees of the late 1970s. In addition to Randolph, there was Graig Nettles with 67.9 career WAR.

Added in Edit: His more famous teammate on those teams, Reggie Jackson, had career WAR of 74. Reggie was certainly Hall-worthy, but you would think he would be separated from Nettles by more than 6.1 WAR.

Randolph is right there statistically with Biggio and Alomar. Of course if Whitaker can't get in (75 WAR), neither can Randolph.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

When I see the strangely high or low numbers, I'm all the more for ignoring this modern-day statistical invention that so many people decided to hang their hats on as the penultimate stat. I didn't need this statistic for all the years prior to its popularity and don't need it now.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If WAR is penultimate, what is ultimate?

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If WAR is penultimate, what is ultimate?

It had just been too long since we had a cameo from something in the Bruces' lexicon.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

I grew up with the Bronx Zoo Yankees of the late 1970s. In addition to Randolph, there was Graig Nettles with 67.9 career WAR.

Added in Edit: His more famous teammate on those teams, Reggie Jackson, had career WAR of 74. Reggie was certainly Hall-worthy, but you would think he would be separated from Nettles by more than 6.1 WAR.

Nettles comes up in these discussions a lot, I was trying to focus on guys who don't, but I agree. Nettles is tragically underrated.

[tod41]

WAR is a flawed tool that is overused. Steve Garvey's war is only 38 while Willie Randolph's is 65. Does that really tell you the story? Who was the more impactful player? To me, its Garvey by a mile.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by tod41

WAR is a flawed tool that is overused. Steve Garvey's war is only 38 while Willie Randolph's is 65. Does that really tell you the story? Who was the more impactful player? To me, its Garvey by a mile.

Then again, long before the new metrics, Garvey got little love for the Hall despite all the counting stats.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I'll never understand people who dismiss WAR because it doesn't tell them what they feel is right. Isn't that the POINT of a new stat? Why would we need a stat to tell us what we already knew?

You can argue about it's supposed shortcomings, but to dismiss it out of hand because it disagrees with you instead of learning WHY it disagrees with you doesn't seem to be a productive way of going about things.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I'll never understand people who dismiss WAR because it doesn't tell them what they feel is right. Isn't that the POINT of a new stat? Why would we need a stat to tell us what we already knew?

You can argue about it's supposed shortcomings, but to dismiss it out of hand because it disagrees with you instead of learning WHY it disagrees with you doesn't seem to be a productive way of going about things.

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

[tod41]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Then again, long before the new metrics, Garvey got little love for the Hall despite all the counting stats.

Maybe so. But he got more love than current Hall of Famers like Ted Simmons and Jim Kaat (both over 50 WARs)

[timn1]

Originally Posted by tod41

WAR is a flawed tool that is overused. Steve Garvey's war is only 38 while Willie Randolph's is 65. Does that really tell you the story? Who was the more impactful player? To me, its Garvey by a mile.

Garvey was an out-making machine and a defensive liability! Randolph was a helluva player, a winner (and this from a Yankee-hater).

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by timn1

Garvey was an out-making machine and a defensive liability! Randolph was a helluva player, a winner (and this from a Yankee-hater).

8 straight all star appearances, but stunningly, in the "WAR7" metric reflecting the peak 7 years, he is 55th among first basemen.

[Musashi]

As a Dodger fan, I always felt that Garvey was over rated. When WAR came out , I eagerly checked to see if it would confirm my suspicion that Garvey was the second most valuable member of the that infield behind Ron Cey.

In this case WAR did not confirm my bias. Garvey was third behind Cey and Lopes

(note: if you count just their time together instead of their whole careers, it does indeed go Cey-Garvey-Lopes, but this is more fun to say)

[YazFenway08]

I was just discussing Joe Carter with a friend last week.

I realize that the RBI is not a favored new age stat and the “clutch gene” cant really be measured quantitatively, but his WAR seems to really run counter to what I saw when I watched him. He is one of the few on this list where I saw his entire career and it just doesn’t add up.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

8 straight all star appearances, but stunningly, in the "WAR7" metric reflecting the peak 7 years, he is 55th among first basemen.

Getting way off topic, but Garvey also won 4 Gold Gloves. But, I have ceased to put weight on awards like that. The fact that Derek Jeter won 5 Gold Gloves and Jim Kaat won the Gold Glove in 1969 despite a .826 fielding percentage tells me that the GG is often more about flash than fundamentals.

[tod41]

Originally Posted by timn1

Garvey was an out-making machine and a defensive liability! Randolph was a helluva player, a winner (and this from a Yankee-hater).

Check Garvey's post season numbers. He was winner enough. Higher OPS than Mantle in the Post Season.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Tommy Davis 20.4 in a LONG career and half of it came in two seasons.
Bill Buckner 15.0

I like the surprisingly High WARs. 60 is a reasonable shot at the HOF in most cases:

Kevin Brown 67.8
Willie Randolph 65.9
Reggie Smith 64.5
Willie Davis 60.7
Bobby Abreu 60.2

Grich 71 never can get my head around that one.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Grich 71 never can get my head around that one.

No second baseman has had a higher career OPS+ than Grich’s 125 since he retired in ‘86. Not Biggio (112), Sandberg (114), Alomar (116), Whitaker (117), Utley (117), Kent (123), or Cano (124).

Note that Morgan (132) retired 2 years before Grich, and Carew (131), who played more games at 1B than 2B retired a year before Grich. Altuve is currently at 129.

Grich was also an elite fielder in his early years.

[packs]

I know the numbers are what they are for Grich but I have a hard time seeing a career 266 hitter with less than 2,000 hits and 250 home runs as a HOFer.

[Beercan collector]

Originally Posted by packs

I know the numbers are what they are for Grich but I have a hard time seeing a career 266 hitter with less than 2,000 hits and 250 home runs as a HOFer.

Yep - find player but not HOFer ,
I remember Grich but only after being reminded 🙂 (Spaeth)
Had to look him up ,
He’s in the Orioles Hall of Fame AND the Angels Hall of Fame !

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

...and Chris Short is on the Phillies Wall of Fame.

[gregndodgers]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Grich 71 never can get my head around that one.

Grich was one of my favorite players, and I always felt he was underrated. As a 2B in the 70s and 80s, he was one of the best at his position, when many 2Bs were not good offensively.

The thing about Grich was his consistency. In his first 9 major league seasons, he had 3,432 ABs and hit 161 home runs and batted .260.

In his final 8 seasons, he had 3,458 ABs and hit 159 home runs and batted .273.

So that's 17 seasons of averaging around 20 home runs per season and batting around .265!

IMO, that's a great player, particularly for a second baseman in the 1970s / 80s.

Is he HOF worthy? Probably not, but a great player nonetheless.

[gregndodgers]

Steve Garvey is an interesting case study. Is he HOF worthy? I think he is. I saw him play his whole career, and although I think it is a close call, he should be in the HOF. I offer the following for consideration:

1. I spoke to Garvey once and he said he could have hit around 30 home runs more often, but he would have struck out more and had a lower BA. he said that hitting for power would have hurt the team's chances of winning, and he valued winning games over his personal stats. And we all know that his teams won a lot!

2. Stat geeks that look at overall career numbers and WAR as well as people who never saw him play are not aware that he was a great clutch hitter! He consistently helped his team win games!
- In 55 post season games, he batted .338 with 11 home runs and 32 RBIs in 222 at bats. How many players can match that???
- batting average with RISP in 1974 - .330
- batting average with RISP in 1975 - .302
- batting average with RISP in 1976 - .297
- batting average with RISP in 1977 - .311
- batting average with RISP in 1978 - .320
- batting average with RISP in 1979 - .322
- batting average with RISP in 1980 - .315
- batting average with RISP in 1981 - .325
- batting average with RISP in 1982 - .291

For me, he was the best clutch player of his generation!

3. Garvey's 2,599 base hits ranks 84th all time! With that many hits, he should be in the HOF, particularly when you consider all of his other intangibles including clutch hitting, durability, his five MVP awards (1974 season MVP, two all-star game MVPs, and two post season MVP awards), and four gold gloves. How many players with that many hits are NOT in the HOF? Only a handful. Unfortunately, his late career start (he was not a regular player until age 25) and the shortened 1981 season due to the player's strike cost him a lot of hits.

4. Garvey was a 10 time all-star! C'mon, when you hear that, you gotta think HOF! He was the National League's starting first baseman in the all-star game for seven straight seasons (1974 - 1980), and he also started for the NL in 1984 and 1985. he was the all-star game MVP 2x (74' and 78'). So for those who say he was overrated or was not a good player, the fans who voted and his performance in those games say otherwise! This was a time with no internet and a limited number of ballots were handed out to fans who had to return them.

5. He played in Dodger stadium that had different playing field dimensions than currently exist. In 2004, they added several thousand seats behind home plate and along the base lines that removed 10,000 square feet of foul territory (a full one third reduction of foul territory!). Hence, the stadium is somewhat neutral in terms of hitting, but in Garvey's time, it was decidedly a pitcher's park. So offensive numbers were suppressed.

6. During Garvey's seven prime years (1974-1980), he had 200 or more hits each season except one (192 in 77'), he batted .311, averaged 161 games, averaged 103 RBIs per season and hit an average of 21 home runs.

7. In his 1981 book, Lawrence Ritter listed him as one of the 100 greatest players of all time.


Garvey's true value, which often gets overlooked, was that he consistently produced runs for his team and hit for a very high average. In other words, he valued hitting for average and driving in runs over hitting home runs. Remember, he grew up in the 1950s and 60s when batting average was more important than hitting lots of home runs. That's why his strikeout numbers were always low (he averaged just 70 strikeouts per season during his prime years).

I found a thread on Garvey here
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=247372

[Beercan collector]

I kind of agree about Garvey - not real similar to Rose as a player but both were spark plugs and both were good in the post season .
When Rose was on the Reds were good When he was on the Phillies the Phillies were good .
Garvey was good for the Dodgers went to the Padres and was good with the Padres .
For his career he batted .338 in the postseason
Edit :Gregndodgers Already noted his postseason batting average

[packs]

I don't see a HOFer in Steve Garvey either. Don Mattingly was better than him and he's not getting in.

Garvey is one of those guys who has a "HOF resume" but he's not the only player with one not in the HOF. Johan Santana won two Cy Youngs, has three ERA titles, and a pitching Triple Crown. Sounds like a HOF resume alright but in practice he didn't even survive his first ballot when it came to HOF voting.

[gregndodgers]

Garvey's chances were hurt by his well-documented off field problems. However, I still believe the veterans committee (or something akin to that) elects him into the HOF. He is currently running for to be a U.S. Senator from CA.

[aro13]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Grich 71 never can get my head around that one.

Peter- His WAR is directly related to the lack of offense from all other second baseman in the AL. In 1974 Grich hit 19 homers. I would bet the other 13 starting second baseman in the AL had a hard time hitting 19 total. The position was filled with .260 hitters with .310 OBP and .310 slugging numbers.