eras committee candidates baseball HOF

[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.

[packs]

Per BR, in 1973 his offensive WAR came to 5.1 and his dWAR came to 4.0 but he's awarded an 8.3 WAR overall.

I don't know how those calculations are made, but dWAR seems extremely flawed to me and I'm not sure how much stock it's meant to carry.

I say this because according to dWAR, Don Mattingly, a 9 time Gold Glove winner and more or less universally acclaimed first baseman, has only negative dWAR for his entire career, which doesn't seem like a reflection of his actual play.

So if you put that much stock in dWAR, it appears Grich had an 8 WAR season. But did he? I don't know because dWAR seems so out of whack. If you do accept his 8.3 WAR as accurate and a reflection of his play, then I still feel like you are putting an extreme amount of stock in stellar defensive play from your second baseman in place of actual production. Which you can do, of course. But given his 19th place finish in MVP voting and non-selection as an All Star during what is, by WAR, his best statistical season, could reflect similar disinterest.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Mattingly 's DWAR reflects the position he played, not his ability personally. First base is considered a relatively easy position so first basemen do not start out at zero, they start negative when comparing them to other players. At least that's how I understand it.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by packs

Per BR, in 1973 his offensive WAR came to 5.1 and his dWAR came to 4.0 but he's awarded an 8.3 WAR overall.

I don't know how those calculations are made, but dWAR seems extremely flawed to me and I'm not sure how much stock it's meant to carry.

I say this because according to dWAR, Don Mattingly, a 9 time Gold Glove winner and more or less universally acclaimed first baseman, has only negative dWAR for his entire career, which doesn't seem like a reflection of his actual play.

So if you put that much stock in dWAR, it appears Grich had an 8 WAR season. But did he? I don't know because dWAR seems so out of whack. If you do accept his 8.3 WAR as accurate and a reflection of his play, then I still feel like you are putting an extreme amount of stock in stellar defensive play from your second baseman in place of actual production. Which you can do, of course. But given his 19th place finish in MVP voting and non-selection as an All Star during what is, by WAR, his best statistical season, could reflect similar disinterest.

Again, Grich led the league in Putouts, Assists, Double Plays AND had a fielding % of .995 as a 2nd baseman, and played all 162 games. This is why his DWAR was so high.

He didn't make the All Star team or finish high in MVP voting because of people like you and Tabe that only seem to care about batting average and HRs. But that doesn't mean he didn't deserve to be higher in MVP voting. There are many, many examples of MVP votes going towards undeserving guys. I am not saying Grich deserved to win MVP, but he deserved to be higher than 19th (he should have definitely been higher than Tommy Davis and Orlando Cepeda, for example)

[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.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

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

Which was exactly my point. A .387 slugging in any era at any position is nowhere near great. But Grich gets a lot of benefit from it because his 2B contemporaries were terrible at the plate.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Which was exactly my point. A .387 slugging in any era at any position is nowhere near great. But Grich gets a lot of benefit from it because his 2B contemporaries were terrible at the plate.

Don't you think it makes sense to evaluate a player against his contemporaries? The ones facing the same competition under the same circumstances?