Options
70's, 80's HOF candidates...Rice, Dawson, and a host of others..
Skinpinch
Posts: 1,531
in Sports Talk
Hey, it is HOF time, and the discussions have been good thus far, so why not continue? Lets focus on the 70's/80's guys as many of them are still up for election or are dangerously close to being axed off the ballot. Remember, this is the most competitive time in history in MLB, in other words, the most difficult time to distance oneself from their peers...peers which happened to be drawn from the largest population of basesball playiing age available in U.S. history...and from the largest population of players that PLAYED BASEBALL AS YOUNGSTERS(and not getting snatched up so much by other sports). Kids simply played baseball more often then. Anyway, that is another topic(we can discuss it anothter time, but just keep it as a back drop in your thought process).
The most common names for induction from this era are Jim Rice, and Andre Dawson...both outstanding players. What I want to do is group them based on the most comprehensive offensive method to date...SITUATIONAL Linear Weight Batter Runs...it takes every offensive event into account, WITH THE PROPER WEIGHT, and does it for each OUT and BASE SITUATION, and adjusts for BALLPARK. There is nothing else that will show how directly responsible for runs these fellas were with the bat. There are minor flaws with the system, and some of those flaws only pertain to certain players and can't really be applied to a group. I can lay those out another day, but they are minor enough that it won't change the groupings much. For sake of time, forget them totally for now.
This is the number of BR above a LEAGUE AVERAGE player, so the longevity/prime debate still plays a part in the value of a player and how one views it. I like to deal with that by showing the career list, and the peak list(BEST FIVE YEARS, the Koufax element).
I limited it to guys whose value was primarily attained with the big wooden stick.
SOME HOFers FROM THAT ERA for context.
Schmidt 560
Murray 509
Brett 497
Winfield 452 (he is the lowest HOF slugger from era).
OUTSIDE LOOKING IN...
Jack Clark 414
K. Hernandez 382
Darrell Evans 374
Dave Parker 365
K. Singleton 332
R. Smith 325
P. Guerrero 320
A. Oliver 306
D. Evans 298
S. Garvey 294
Luzinkski 273
Foster 267
Dawson 251
Lynn 250
Madlock 237
Cooper 236
Rice 189
That is where they stack up offensively. This does not take defense or position into account. Remember, these lists aren't rigid, there is some fluidity. I would also look at other comprehensive methods too. There are also some things that could change a ranking as well. But there are some guys that are not far off the cream of the crop from the era.
Often times, a career look doesn't properly put into view how good that player was while in their prime, and that has merit for sure. The best way to measure the player is by both career(vs. League avg, & leage replacement), AND prime performance. Lets see how these same guys stack up using their BEST five seasons(don't have to be consecutive). PRIME PERFORMANCE........
Brett 270
Murray 260
Schmidt 245 (includes his strike shortened '81 seasons...proratted he is around 260)
Winfield 236
OUTSIDE LOOKING IN....
Guerrero 246
Parker 232
J. Clark 226
Singleton 225
Hernandez 224
Foster 209
Luzinski 207
R. Smith 206
Garvey 205
Dw. Evans 198
Darrell Evans 187
Lynn 184
Oliver 165
Rice 160
Madlock 155
Cooper 144
Dawson 128
MY THOUGHTS ON THE CLOSEST GUYS???
Some of these guys stopped playing in their mid 30's and missed the inevitable down years...they didn't see the below average years (which would give them a NEGATIVE number for that season). For instance, Murray's last two seasons cost him -38 BR on that list. Winfield's last three cost him -36 BR. Those guys were both well into their 40's! Take the opposite view...
Keith Hernandez was retired after age 36. He was already into his negative years with a minus 10 for has last two seasons. Had he played seven more years like a Murray or Winfield, then it is hard to imagine how many negatives he may have attained. As it was, he lost it and was done, and had no contribution to anything. Contrast that to Murray. He played from age 37 and on(1993 to 1997) and he amassed a negative 7 in BR in that time. That has value(it contributes to wins), BUT that value is not reflected in this measurement, and in fact detracts from what his true value really was.
Jack Clark...same thing, done at 36(his last season -6.4).
Guerrero...done at 36(last season -11).
Singelton...done at 37(last season -20)
R. Smith...done at 37(last two seasons +14).
All of those guys had excellent primes, only Guerrero was w/ the big guys. All were done early, and rightfully so(excpet Smith).
Darrell Evans? Outstanding career total, but prime was a little too low.
Rice and Dawson are quite far down on both lists.
Everybody else was just a little too far on both lists...except DAVE PARKER!!!!!!!!!
Another way to compare these same guys would be a measurement like WinShares from Bill James, as it does give the credit for the value that occurs in an average or slightly below average seasons...those seasons contribute to wins as well. HE does not weight the situatins as much though.
Keeping the backdrop of the very tough competitive era in mind, there are guys who have a case, and are close enough to the big guys from that era. This is an off the top of my head list as well. I'm sure I missed a few guys, and I did not look at the defensive minded guys who could hit a bit too. Like I said, it is a competitive time where the superstars had a lot of guys close to their ability.
I think Parker has the most merit of those on that list...and keeping the competitive back drop in mind, I would for certain Parker should be there, both career and peak wise(defense not too shabby either). Individual differences may make a case for others, but i wrote enough
. Somebody else is welcome to make a good case for somebody else though, and defense should play a role...
The most common names for induction from this era are Jim Rice, and Andre Dawson...both outstanding players. What I want to do is group them based on the most comprehensive offensive method to date...SITUATIONAL Linear Weight Batter Runs...it takes every offensive event into account, WITH THE PROPER WEIGHT, and does it for each OUT and BASE SITUATION, and adjusts for BALLPARK. There is nothing else that will show how directly responsible for runs these fellas were with the bat. There are minor flaws with the system, and some of those flaws only pertain to certain players and can't really be applied to a group. I can lay those out another day, but they are minor enough that it won't change the groupings much. For sake of time, forget them totally for now.
This is the number of BR above a LEAGUE AVERAGE player, so the longevity/prime debate still plays a part in the value of a player and how one views it. I like to deal with that by showing the career list, and the peak list(BEST FIVE YEARS, the Koufax element).
I limited it to guys whose value was primarily attained with the big wooden stick.
SOME HOFers FROM THAT ERA for context.
Schmidt 560
Murray 509
Brett 497
Winfield 452 (he is the lowest HOF slugger from era).
OUTSIDE LOOKING IN...
Jack Clark 414
K. Hernandez 382
Darrell Evans 374
Dave Parker 365
K. Singleton 332
R. Smith 325
P. Guerrero 320
A. Oliver 306
D. Evans 298
S. Garvey 294
Luzinkski 273
Foster 267
Dawson 251
Lynn 250
Madlock 237
Cooper 236
Rice 189
That is where they stack up offensively. This does not take defense or position into account. Remember, these lists aren't rigid, there is some fluidity. I would also look at other comprehensive methods too. There are also some things that could change a ranking as well. But there are some guys that are not far off the cream of the crop from the era.
Often times, a career look doesn't properly put into view how good that player was while in their prime, and that has merit for sure. The best way to measure the player is by both career(vs. League avg, & leage replacement), AND prime performance. Lets see how these same guys stack up using their BEST five seasons(don't have to be consecutive). PRIME PERFORMANCE........
Brett 270
Murray 260
Schmidt 245 (includes his strike shortened '81 seasons...proratted he is around 260)
Winfield 236
OUTSIDE LOOKING IN....
Guerrero 246
Parker 232
J. Clark 226
Singleton 225
Hernandez 224
Foster 209
Luzinski 207
R. Smith 206
Garvey 205
Dw. Evans 198
Darrell Evans 187
Lynn 184
Oliver 165
Rice 160
Madlock 155
Cooper 144
Dawson 128
MY THOUGHTS ON THE CLOSEST GUYS???
Some of these guys stopped playing in their mid 30's and missed the inevitable down years...they didn't see the below average years (which would give them a NEGATIVE number for that season). For instance, Murray's last two seasons cost him -38 BR on that list. Winfield's last three cost him -36 BR. Those guys were both well into their 40's! Take the opposite view...
Keith Hernandez was retired after age 36. He was already into his negative years with a minus 10 for has last two seasons. Had he played seven more years like a Murray or Winfield, then it is hard to imagine how many negatives he may have attained. As it was, he lost it and was done, and had no contribution to anything. Contrast that to Murray. He played from age 37 and on(1993 to 1997) and he amassed a negative 7 in BR in that time. That has value(it contributes to wins), BUT that value is not reflected in this measurement, and in fact detracts from what his true value really was.
Jack Clark...same thing, done at 36(his last season -6.4).
Guerrero...done at 36(last season -11).
Singelton...done at 37(last season -20)
R. Smith...done at 37(last two seasons +14).
All of those guys had excellent primes, only Guerrero was w/ the big guys. All were done early, and rightfully so(excpet Smith).
Darrell Evans? Outstanding career total, but prime was a little too low.
Rice and Dawson are quite far down on both lists.
Everybody else was just a little too far on both lists...except DAVE PARKER!!!!!!!!!
Another way to compare these same guys would be a measurement like WinShares from Bill James, as it does give the credit for the value that occurs in an average or slightly below average seasons...those seasons contribute to wins as well. HE does not weight the situatins as much though.
Keeping the backdrop of the very tough competitive era in mind, there are guys who have a case, and are close enough to the big guys from that era. This is an off the top of my head list as well. I'm sure I missed a few guys, and I did not look at the defensive minded guys who could hit a bit too. Like I said, it is a competitive time where the superstars had a lot of guys close to their ability.
I think Parker has the most merit of those on that list...and keeping the competitive back drop in mind, I would for certain Parker should be there, both career and peak wise(defense not too shabby either). Individual differences may make a case for others, but i wrote enough
. Somebody else is welcome to make a good case for somebody else though, and defense should play a role...0
Comments
Great stuff! I always enjoy your posts. Perhaps, someone should start championing Dave Parker's cause for the Hall of Fame.
It is possible that the writers have the hitters pretty well separated, and realize that the inclusion of one from the next tier would be hard, because then there are a bunch more who would have equal merit. I too find it hard to just pick one, as there are just a boat load of guys who were all right there, but just missed HOF for one reason or another. Jim Rice and Dawson are outstanding players, but I'm not sure how they can be championed for the HOF without doing the same for all the others on that list.
It could just be a case where the next tier from that era was HOF worthy(not quite on par with Brett etc..), but just petered out at age 36, and their prime was just short enough to not carry them.
<< <i>Parker loses points for drug problems, but even without those I wouldn't vote for him. Very interesting to see Rice & Dawson so far down on those lists. Maybe all the guys who need to get in are already in. >>
Yes, but Parker gains points for having a very cool nickname.
BTW, skin, where does Alan Trammell rank on this list? Tiger fans want to know!!!
I guess hit hit all his homers over the Green Monster with no men on base.
Bosox1976
bosox, it can be done for cross eras, though this current era players get a bit of advantage in the measurement, and only when this is taken into account, does it make it more accurate.