eras committee candidates baseball HOF

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I agree that Grich and Sandberg are closer than most people think. But I think OPS+ does control for ballparks.

See this: https://www.mlb.com/glossary/advance...-slugging-plus

On-base Plus Slugging Plus (OPS+)
Definition

OPS+ takes a player's on-base plus slugging percentage and normalizes the number across the entire league. It accounts for external factors like ballparks. It then adjusts so a score of 100 is league average, and 150 is 50 percent better than the league average.

For example, Miguel Cabrera's .895 OPS in 2014 was 50 percent better than the MLB average after being adjusted for league and park factors. As a result, his OPS+ was 150.

The formula
100 x (OBP/lgOBP + SLG/lgSLG - 1)

Why it's useful:
OPS does not tell you how much a player was affected by factors such as his home ballpark's dimensions or altitude. OPS+ attempts to adjust for those factors to give you a context-neutral number.

Yes it indeed does account for home parks as I mentioned in there.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Evidence?

Every article announcing his election - at least the half dozen I checked - all mention the home run before his defense is every mentioned.

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Every article announcing his election - at least the half dozen I checked - all mention the home run before his defense is every mentioned.

So it was the highlight of his career, doesn't show that's WHY he was voted in, natural a journalist would mention it. Bobby Thomson isn't in. Maris isn't in, a much bigger deal in his moment of glory than Mazeroski.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Not only were Morgan and Carew contemporaries of Grich, they also had really strong years as 2nd basemen in 1973. They both finished 4th in their respective leagues in MVP voting, and Morgan may have deserved to win.

I guess Tabe missed out on that fact. Or does he think Morgan and Carew were "terrible"?

Since Joe didn't play in the AL, no, wasn't counting him. Carew was amazing, no question. The point stands as highlighted by the list of OPS above - his AL contemporaries, as a group, sucked.

[Misunderestimated]

Maz probably shouldn't be in -- he's at the lower end of HOFers for me. But he does have 10 All-Star games and 8 Gold Gloves and he's considered among the very best fielding 2nd Basemen.
Maz was also a one-team guy and that probably inured to his benefit. The one shinning moment (his HR in the World Series) surely helped. It may have put him over the top but big moments aren't sufficient to guarantee HOF selection -Joe Carter isn't in the HOF and he hit a pretty big World Series homer too.... Maybe Carter should be in the HOF.
-
I recall that Joe Morgan was very unhappy when the Vet's Committee selected Maz and did something about it (Morgan was a powerful guy in Baseball and a Second Basemen)
His selection led to the reconstitution of the Vets Committee.
Here is an interested article about his selection and its aftermath......if someone else mentioned this already I apologize for missing it and duplicating the post....==>

https://bestworst.substack.com/p/hof...az-controversy

[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.

[Kutcher55]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I would put him in solely on the basis of Paradise By the Dashboard Light.

Yeah and I forgot about The Money Store. Between Holy Cow, The Money Store and that annoying Meatloaf song, I'm changing my tune on the Scooter.

[packs]

I don’t think the HOF necessarily cares if you were one of the top players at your position while you played. Larry Doyle was easily the best second baseman the NL had seen up until the day he retired. He also won an MVP. He’s not in the HOF. His numbers didn’t get him there. Maybe that was the old view though. Either you were the top of the top of all players or not. I do think that has changed a bit with recent elections.