eras committee candidates baseball HOF

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But you make it sound like WAR is some irrelevant number, rather than a metric developed by experts to capture excellence that counting stats might not otherwise recognize. What's your issue with WAR? And it can't be, it must suck if it thinks Grich was great, that's circular.

At the very least, it would be nice if the new metric would more greatly compliment a player's previous recognition. If a player is almost entirely forgotten about when there are so many alive who saw him play, that speaks more to me than anything a new metric has to say. Yes, Grich won a few awards, but he never led the league with any dizzying stats. In fact, the only three instances where he did so was once in games played (who cares) and once in HR with a whopping 22. (Side note: 22 HR led the league?!). Oh, and WAR one season, a stat which had yet to be created. He retired nearly 40 years ago and it always felt like his name was lost to time. Even if he had been moderately superb, logic would dictate that he'd have been mentioned with exponentially more frequency. But all was quiet for so long until WAR came about, and BOOM, he's a legend?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

At the very least, it would be nice if the new metric would more greatly compliment a player's previous recognition. If a player is almost entirely forgotten about when there are so many alive who saw him play, that speaks more to me than anything a new metric has to say. Yes, Grich won a few awards, but he never led the league with any dizzying stats. In fact, the only three instances where he did so was once in games played (who cares) and once in HR with a whopping 22. (Side note: 22 HR led the league?!). Oh, and WAR one season, a stat which had yet to be created. He retired nearly 40 years ago and it always felt like his name was lost to time. Even if he had been moderately superb, logic would dictate that he'd have been mentioned with exponentially more frequency. But all was quiet for so long until WAR came about, and BOOM, he's a legend?

If you could show that WAR in general is a bad metric, that would make sense. If you can just point to one example where it rates highly a player not previously thought to rate high, then to me what's much more logical is to say this player was underappreciated in his day for the less than obvious things he did. What I don't think you can do is cherry pick. Oh WAR is great generally, and I agree with it except in this one case. Can it really be that it's a great metric but it just completely fails in one single case? Seems unlikely.

So again, I think one has to make out a case against WAR generally. For example, it overrates the value of walks. It overrates the importance of fielding. Etc.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

I am only saying that its application doesn't have any power in my mind to suddenly turn a somewhat above average player into a legend.

[G1911]

Does anyone know the full equation of WAR and its subcomponent other metrics whose calculations it feeds off of (without Googling it)? Seems to me people put a lot of faith (or a lot of hate) into a stat almost nobody really even understands.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

At the very least, it would be nice if the new metric would more greatly compliment a player's previous recognition. If a player is almost entirely forgotten about when there are so many alive who saw him play, that speaks more to me than anything a new metric has to say. Yes, Grich won a few awards, but he never led the league with any dizzying stats. In fact, the only three instances where he did so was once in games played (who cares) and once in HR with a whopping 22. (Side note: 22 HR led the league?!). Oh, and WAR one season, a stat which had yet to be created. He retired nearly 40 years ago and it always felt like his name was lost to time. Even if he had been moderately superb, logic would dictate that he'd have been mentioned with exponentially more frequency. But all was quiet for so long until WAR came about, and BOOM, he's a legend?

We know that there are aspects of baseball that have been underappreciated in the past, which are now more understood. For example, probably because of how exciting they are, people overrated the value of a stolen base. Especially because they did not deduct the damage of a caught stealing. It is hard to get on base, so wiping out a baserunner and adding an out is a big deal. Gaining an extra base is comparatively a smaller deal. It is why a player needs to have roughly a 75% success rate to make stealing bases a net positive.

Similarly, walks were underrated, while hits were overrated. When the bases are empty, a single and a walk are practically the same thing. In essence OBP is a better indicator of value to a team that batting average.

Information like this exposed some players who were seen as far more valuable than they actually were. In particular, high batting average, low power players, and fast players whose stolen base rates were not elite. The biggest example might be Lou Brock, but it is also why Ichiro was an excellent player, but has a lower WAR than other star players who had a higher OBP.

Similarly, these ideas also shed light on players who were undervalued. Specifically, players who had a high OBP and lowish batting average. Bobby Grich is a primary example.

All that said, the formula for WAR was not 'given to Moses at Sinai'. It is a composite stat that makes assumptions. The positional adjustments are a major factor which can be confusing, and are why players at positions (like 2nd base) which traditionally have been weaker offensive positions will have a higher offensive WAR than players at other positions. Whether this should be this way (and certainly the degree that it is this way) is up for discussion.

Defensive metrics remain subject to many assumptions as well. Should we give a player benefit for positioning, or focus on how hard a play was? Has this changed over time given that players used to position themselves and now it is done from the dugout...

Lots to discuss. The conceptual ideas behind WAR aren't (to me) particularly difficult to follow, even if I never bothered to run through the exact math for each component. Here's the link to Baseball Reference's version...


https://www.baseball-reference.com/a...position.shtml

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

(Side note: 22 HR led the league?!).

Well, yeah. It was 1981. They played 2/3 of a regular schedule because of the strike.

[Tabe]

Grich, like Joe Morgan, benefits from playing in era when most of his position contemporaries stunk. In 1973, Grich led the AL in WAR, while hitting .251 with 12 homers and a 116 OPS+. By no stretch of the imagination was it a great - or even anything more than just pretty average - season. But because he had contemporaries putting up .300 slugging percentages, he gets an 8.3 WAR.

[Mungo Hungo]

Grich had 107 walks in 1973, and won a Gold Glove. He was also in the 2d year of a 3-year run of being in the top 20 of MVP voting. So even without the advanced stats, the baseball world of the time recognized that he had far better than a "pretty average" season. With today's perspectives, we can see that he had a superlative season.

[sports-cards-forever]

I like using All Star selections as a good barometer. Yes, sometimes it can be seen as a popularity contest, but I think it's a good indication of the player's ability compared to his peers. If he wasn't making all-star teams, it's hard to consider the player a hall of famer.

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by sports-cards-forever

I like using All Star selections as a good barometer. Yes, sometimes it can be seen as a popularity contest, but I think it's a good indication of the player's ability compared to his peers. If he wasn't making all-star teams, it's hard to consider the player a hall of famer.

Bill Freehan was an 11 time all-star! Never a sniff at the hall of fame.

I grew up watching Lou Whitaker. He finished his career with the 7th highest WAR of any 2nd baseman in history (75.1) - ahead of Bobby Grich, Ryne Sandberg, Craig Biggio, Bobby Doerr, Roberto Alomar, and even Jackie Robinson. There are at least 14 second basemen in the hall with a lower WAR than Whitaker. But I'm not sold on him being a hall of famer - which is blasphemy to say out loud in Detroit. He was better than Bobby Grich, but he wasn't better than Alomar or Biggio.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Mungo Hungo

Grich had 107 walks in 1973, and won a Gold Glove. He was also in the 2d year of a 3-year run of being in the top 20 of MVP voting. So even without the advanced stats, the baseball world of the time recognized that he had far better than a "pretty average" season. With today's perspectives, we can see that he had a superlative season.

+1

Grich had an on base percentage of .373 which was top 10 in the League and had one of the all-time best fielding seasons by a 2nd baseman, leading the league in assists (503), putouts (431), double plays (130) and fielding % (.995).

He also played every game of the season, which helped him pile up the WAR.

But in typical Tabe fashion, he only looks at Batting Average and HRs and dismisses everything else.

[packs]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

+1

Grich had an on base percentage of .373 which was top 10 in the League and had one of the all-time best fielding seasons by a 2nd baseman, leading the league in assists (503), putouts (431), double plays (130) and fielding % (.995).

He also played every game of the season, which helped him pile up the WAR.

But in typical Tabe fashion, he only looks at Batting Average and HRs and dismisses everything else.

But doesn't the point still stand? His 1973 season was not a great season. You can talk about his fielding and I would agree with you, but the same thing would be said of Omar Vizquel and he's not a HOFer, even before his off-field issues.

I don't think anyone can objectively say a guy hitting 251 with 12 homers and 50 RBIs with an OPS+ of 116 had a great season just because he led in WAR.

For comparison's sake, Rod Carew did not lead the league in WAR in 1973 but he did finish 4th to Girch's 19th in MVP voting after hitting a league leading 350 with a league leading 203 hits and leading the league in triples.

His WAR is almost a point and a half below Grich's but how could anyone say Carew had the inferior season?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by packs

But doesn't the point still stand? His 1973 season was not a great season. You can talk about his fielding and I would agree with you, but the same thing would be said of Omar Vizquel and he's not a HOFer, even before his off-field issues.

I don't think anyone can objectively say a guy hitting 251 with 12 homers and 50 RBIs with an OPS+ of 116 had a great season just because he led in WAR.

For comparison's sake, Rod Carew did not lead the league in WAR in 1973 but he did finish 4th to Girch's 19th in MVP voting after hitting a league leading 350 with a league leading 203 hits and leading the league in triples.

His WAR is almost a point and a half below Grich's but how could anyone say Carew had the inferior season?

My point is that there is more to a player's value than just looking at Home Runs and Batting Average. Grich's defense in 1973 was one of the greatest defensive seasons of all time, and arguably more valuable than any that Vizquel ever had. Vizquel didn't make many errors, but he only led the league in Putouts and Double plays once. Vizquel never led the League in Assists. Grich led the League in all 3 categories and and still had a fielding percentage of .995. When you have one of the best fielding seasons in the history of the game and are an above average hitter and get on base as much as Grich did, add it all up, and I think he did have a great year.

I'm not arguing Grich should be a lock for the hall of fame, just that he is more valauable than people like Tabe (and apparently you) would suggest.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

But in typical Tabe fashion, he only looks at Batting Average and HRs and dismisses everything else.

It's almost like I didn't include OPS+ in my post.

But, sure a .373 OBP with a .387 slugging percentage is great.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Tabe

It's almost like I didn't include OPS+ in my post.

But, sure a .373 OBP with a .387 slugging percentage is great.

For a second basemen from his era it's damn near otherworldly. A middle infielder who slugged .400 was an extreme rarity.