eras committee candidates baseball HOF

[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?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

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

Sure. But if you put me in a foot race against a bunch of newborns, and I win by a mile, that doesn't make me actually fast.

I'm not saying Grich wasn't very good or whatever. I'm saying his resume is inflated because his contemporaries were terrible.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Tabe

I'm not saying Grich wasn't very good or whatever. I'm saying his resume is inflated because his contemporaries were terrible.

Exactly. That's what I'm getting out of all of this as well. I know I'll be corrected if my interpretation is wrong, but a formula that offers a larger statistical reward based on the incompetence of his peers at the same position is not one that I would ever fully recognize. "Everyone else stinks, so by default you're awesome"?!

[John1941]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Exactly. I know I'll be corrected if my interpretation is wrong, but a formula that offers a larger statistical reward based on the incompetence of his peers at the same position is not one that I would ever fully recognize. "Everyone else stinks, so by default you're awesome"?! That's rich. If it works for you, wonderful.

I don't think your interpretation is wrong, but the differences in statistical reward or demerit are typically very small across eras.

The only cases I know of where there are substantial differences - like how in the 1910s WAR rates 2b as a perfectly neutral position, offensively - is where the position as a whole has actually changed: second base became more of a fielder's position starting around 1925 or so. In which case the difference isn't due to second baseman becoming worse hitters but to a strategic shift.

[Beercan collector]

Bobby Grich Just isn’t a Hall of Fameish sounding name - if he was Bill Grande or Sonny Maverick - He’d probably be in

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Beercan collector

Bobby Grich Just isn’t a Hall of Fameish sounding name - if he was Bill Grande or Sonny Maverick - He’d probably be in

Something with more gravitas like Alexander Grich, or more flair like Diego Grich.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Sure. But if you put me in a foot race against a bunch of newborns, and I win by a mile, that doesn't make me actually fast.



I'm not saying Grich wasn't very good or whatever. I'm saying his resume is inflated because his contemporaries were terrible.

His contemporaries were "terrible" because you are comparing them to other players from other eras, who weren't playing in the same era against the same pitchers, etc... It becomes circular logic. All you can do is recognize that his contemporaries were the best in the world at the time. So it's not racing babies. It's the best on earth, and he was near the top of the best.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

His contemporaries were "terrible" because you are comparing them to other players from other eras, who weren't playing in the same era against the same pitchers, etc... It becomes circular logic. All you can do is recognize that his contemporaries were the best in the world at the time. So it's not racing babies. It's the best on earth, and he was near the top of the best.

+1

How one could come to the conclusion that the players in MLB in 1973 were "terrible" is absurd.

And for all of Tabe's talk about Grich's hitting not being impressive to him, he's still missing the point that Grich had the greatest fielding year of his career in 1973 (which says a lot), and that is a very large part of why his WAR was so high.

[Beercan collector]

Every year The Hall it’s getting farther and farther away from fielding greatness . Chicks dig the long ball blah blah blah and I guess that’s what sells tickets .
Black ink is recognized as an offensive measurement but there’s also black ink Defense .

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

His contemporaries were "terrible" because you are comparing them to other players from other eras, who weren't playing in the same era against the same pitchers, etc... It becomes circular logic. All you can do is recognize that his contemporaries were the best in the world at the time. So it's not racing babies. It's the best on earth, and he was near the top of the best.

.617
.804
.625
.691
.597
.648
.692
.881 (Carew)
.545
.699
.703

That's the OPS of the other 2B in the AL in 1973. The average OPS was .710. 9 out of 11 were below that, with one guy 165 below that.

His contemporaries sucked.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by Tabe

.617
.804
.625
.691
.597
.648
.692
.881 (Carew)
.545
.699
.703

That's the OPS of the other 2B in the AL in 1973. The average OPS was .710. 9 out of 11 were below that, with one guy 165 below that.

His contemporaries sucked.

In post 121 and here, you claim that Grich had such a high WAR in 1973 because his contemporaries sucked.

The element in which WAR adjusts for a player's peers is Rpos. By that statistic, WAR gives Grich five runs in 1973. As I showed in post 161, that is perfectly normal for a second baseman. Exactly five of Grich's 78 runs above replacement in 1973 were due to his contemporaries' ability or lack thereof.

Your claim that Grich has a high WAR in 1973 because his contemporaries were trash is totally false. WAR gives Grich a 8.3 WAR in 1973 because he hit very well (1973 was a pitcher's year) and because he's given a lot of credit for his fielding - which is not unreasonable, given that in 1973 he made 5 errors and led the league in assists, putouts, and double plays.

By the way, if you want to see the year-by-year positional adjustments that WAR makes, this page lists the adjustments through 2017: https://www.baseball-reference.com/a...position.shtml

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Tabe

.617
.804
.625
.691
.597
.648
.692
.881 (Carew)
.545
.699
.703

That's the OPS of the other 2B in the AL in 1973. The average OPS was .710. 9 out of 11 were below that, with one guy 165 below that.

His contemporaries sucked.

That logic is flawed. His contemporaries were facing the same pitching. Othere eras were not. So you can't conclude that because OPS for 2nd basemen was low in his era, that they sucked. It's possible they would have had a much higher OPS in a previous era. You are drawing conclusions based on incorrect logic.

It makes no sense to compare a player to those of a different era. All we can do is compare them to those who were playing at the same time. It's not like the population all of a sudden became worse at 2nd base. There is an ebb and flow to the game, where some eras hitters reign, and some eras pitchers reign. It's still the best in the world playing, just the stats may not translate across eras.

Play mental games all you want to justify why he was better than his contemporaries, but the fact will always remain, he was one of the top at his position when he played. That can't be disputed. And that's what matters.