Options
Bill Mazeroski's true defensive ability, his HOF merit, and more...
Hoopster
Posts: 1,169
in Sports Talk
You can skip the intro, and get down to the meat and potatoes below the dotted line if you wish.....
Many folks do not think Bill Mazeroski belongs in the Hall of Fame. His batting ability is clearly not HOF material, thus we are left to see how good his defense actually was.
Some claim that he was not only the best defenisve second basemen ever, but that he was the best FIELDER ever...regardless of position. It is with this claim that his HOF backers say he belongs in the Hall.
The problem with making such a claim is that it is extremely difficult to isolate an individual palyers defensive value. A player can get a lot of assists, DP, and PO because his pitchers feed him more chances than other guys(or he has a good DP mate). He could make his error rate good because he doesn't go after a lot of tough plays. It is just too hard to isolate how much of this is the players doing, and how much is luck and the teammates doing. The fact is, measuring defense is not nearly as valid as measuring offense.
To have a guy's complete claim as a HOFer based on something that is tough to measure, is a little odd.
But there are some ways to measure. Lets take a look...
Bill Mazeroski only played till age 35, and from age 32 to 35 he was a part time player due to absolutely HORRIBLE batting. So he didn't have any real old man years to bring down his hitting or fielding measures. This certainly helped save many points on his batting average, and already downright awful OB% and SLG%'s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FIELDING ABILITY OF BILL MAZEROSKI
What I want to see is his fielding though. If he was indeed the great fielder EVER, then I would expect him to perform LIGHT YEARS better than the players on his own team, and at is own position!
During Bill Mazeroski's career, there were 10 different seasons where other 2B on his own team played more than 100 innings at 2B. What I looked at during those ten years is the cumulitive fielding totals of both Bill Mazeroski and all of his replacements during THE SAME SEASONS!
What this does is basically compare what Bill Mazeroski did in relation to other players who played under the same circumstances. I am only using Mazeroski's fielding stats and the replacements from during those years. This way they had the same pitchers, the same field conditions, the same weather, and the same fielding mates. The years used were 1956, '57, '59, '63, '65, '68, '69, '70, '71, and '72. Those were all seasons were Mazeroski played at least 100 innings at 2B, and other on his own team did too.
Here are the fielding totals for Mazeroski, and his replacements for those seasons...
NAME...............INNINGS........PO.............A............E...............DP
Mazeroski.........8,576.......2,208.......3,147........91.............765
Replacements...5,771......1,586.......2,102........83..............499
Here is what the average per inning is....
NAME................INNINGs.......PO............A............E...............DP
Mazeroski----------------------.257-------.366------.010---------.089
Replacements-----------------.274-------.364------.014---------.086
If you look at how they did per inning played, you will see that Mazeroski's replacements performed basically about as good as Mazeroski did himself. Maz edged them in assists, errors, and dp per inning. The replacements advantage in PO per innings pretty much wiped out the edge Maz had.
Let's look at it in more easier terms. Here are those figures per 162 games, or 1,458 innings. This is what a typical full season of those figures would look like.....
NAME...................INNINGS..........PO.........A..........E............DP
Mazeroski..............1,458...........374........533......15...........129
Repacements.........1,458...........399.......531.......20...........125
Call me crazy, but I see the replacement level player from his own team playing equally as well as Mazeroski was defensively. The five extra errors, and four less double plays made are pretty much negated by the extra 25 PO the replacements made. It looks as close to a tie as one can expect.
If Mazeroski was indeed the best fielder in the history of the game, I would certainly expect him to outdistance his own replacements at least somewhat. In fact, he was just merely as good.
Is it because he had superb defensive replacements? If so, then I guess he can't be called the greatest ever if he is already tied with bench players.
Is it because Mazeroski is unfairly being compared because it is his entire career and his old man years hurt him....wait HE DIDN'T HAVE OLD MAN YEARS! He retired by age 35. I would expect any best defensive player ever to be good until age 35. It is the bat that goes quickly, not the glove.
This is by no means a perfect study. But I just can't get over the fact that Mazeroski performed evenly with his replacements. There is bound to be margin of error, but any margin of error will not be enough to convince me that Mazeroski is the greatest fielder of ALL TIME, when I see that the players in his stead did just as good!
The reality is that the best defensive players are NOT as valuable as the best offensive players, because the vast majority of PO and Assists are of the routine variety, and pretty much any replacement player would also make the out. A replacement player cannot come in and do anywhere near as good as hitting as the best hitters.
Many folks do not think Bill Mazeroski belongs in the Hall of Fame. His batting ability is clearly not HOF material, thus we are left to see how good his defense actually was.
Some claim that he was not only the best defenisve second basemen ever, but that he was the best FIELDER ever...regardless of position. It is with this claim that his HOF backers say he belongs in the Hall.
The problem with making such a claim is that it is extremely difficult to isolate an individual palyers defensive value. A player can get a lot of assists, DP, and PO because his pitchers feed him more chances than other guys(or he has a good DP mate). He could make his error rate good because he doesn't go after a lot of tough plays. It is just too hard to isolate how much of this is the players doing, and how much is luck and the teammates doing. The fact is, measuring defense is not nearly as valid as measuring offense.
To have a guy's complete claim as a HOFer based on something that is tough to measure, is a little odd.
But there are some ways to measure. Lets take a look...
Bill Mazeroski only played till age 35, and from age 32 to 35 he was a part time player due to absolutely HORRIBLE batting. So he didn't have any real old man years to bring down his hitting or fielding measures. This certainly helped save many points on his batting average, and already downright awful OB% and SLG%'s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FIELDING ABILITY OF BILL MAZEROSKI
What I want to see is his fielding though. If he was indeed the great fielder EVER, then I would expect him to perform LIGHT YEARS better than the players on his own team, and at is own position!
During Bill Mazeroski's career, there were 10 different seasons where other 2B on his own team played more than 100 innings at 2B. What I looked at during those ten years is the cumulitive fielding totals of both Bill Mazeroski and all of his replacements during THE SAME SEASONS!
What this does is basically compare what Bill Mazeroski did in relation to other players who played under the same circumstances. I am only using Mazeroski's fielding stats and the replacements from during those years. This way they had the same pitchers, the same field conditions, the same weather, and the same fielding mates. The years used were 1956, '57, '59, '63, '65, '68, '69, '70, '71, and '72. Those were all seasons were Mazeroski played at least 100 innings at 2B, and other on his own team did too.
Here are the fielding totals for Mazeroski, and his replacements for those seasons...
NAME...............INNINGS........PO.............A............E...............DP
Mazeroski.........8,576.......2,208.......3,147........91.............765
Replacements...5,771......1,586.......2,102........83..............499
Here is what the average per inning is....
NAME................INNINGs.......PO............A............E...............DP
Mazeroski----------------------.257-------.366------.010---------.089
Replacements-----------------.274-------.364------.014---------.086
If you look at how they did per inning played, you will see that Mazeroski's replacements performed basically about as good as Mazeroski did himself. Maz edged them in assists, errors, and dp per inning. The replacements advantage in PO per innings pretty much wiped out the edge Maz had.
Let's look at it in more easier terms. Here are those figures per 162 games, or 1,458 innings. This is what a typical full season of those figures would look like.....
NAME...................INNINGS..........PO.........A..........E............DP
Mazeroski..............1,458...........374........533......15...........129
Repacements.........1,458...........399.......531.......20...........125
Call me crazy, but I see the replacement level player from his own team playing equally as well as Mazeroski was defensively. The five extra errors, and four less double plays made are pretty much negated by the extra 25 PO the replacements made. It looks as close to a tie as one can expect.
If Mazeroski was indeed the best fielder in the history of the game, I would certainly expect him to outdistance his own replacements at least somewhat. In fact, he was just merely as good.
Is it because he had superb defensive replacements? If so, then I guess he can't be called the greatest ever if he is already tied with bench players.
Is it because Mazeroski is unfairly being compared because it is his entire career and his old man years hurt him....wait HE DIDN'T HAVE OLD MAN YEARS! He retired by age 35. I would expect any best defensive player ever to be good until age 35. It is the bat that goes quickly, not the glove.
This is by no means a perfect study. But I just can't get over the fact that Mazeroski performed evenly with his replacements. There is bound to be margin of error, but any margin of error will not be enough to convince me that Mazeroski is the greatest fielder of ALL TIME, when I see that the players in his stead did just as good!
The reality is that the best defensive players are NOT as valuable as the best offensive players, because the vast majority of PO and Assists are of the routine variety, and pretty much any replacement player would also make the out. A replacement player cannot come in and do anywhere near as good as hitting as the best hitters.
0
Comments
The sample size, unfortunately, is perhaps a bit too small to make any totally absolute conclusion, though it is the largest and only one, available for such a comparison, therefore the results can not be ignored, nor casually "bushed-off".
Makes one wonder "why" replacement s were used at all, for a HOF secondbaseman in the first place.
Certainly not primarily a defensive sub, most probable MAZ' batting skills, many times warranted a pinch hitter, thus so often a replacement for him.
Might be interesting to see if such a pattern exists for other top defensive 2B of his era, guys like Nellie Fox, Red Schoendienst, and Gil McDougald come to mind, though probably they hit well enough to preclude as much substitution.
As an aside,
Eddie Collins, a legitimate HOF 2B, outperformed his peers in career FA by .012, MAZ bettered his peers by less, .007.
You are correct, I can't say it provides anything conclusive. The same could be said about ALL other defensive studies. To have a player make the Hall solely on such measurements is a little bit of a reach.
The first thing one might pick at is that most of the defensive ground made up by the replacements in this study were in the years 1969-1972. If Maz were 39-42 years old in that span, then I would agree. But he was 32-35, an age where defensive skills would not be eroding(and actually getting better for some).
If it were the case that Maz's defensive skills did erode at age 32, then from age 32-35 he would be one of the worst players in the history of baseball. His offense was worse than abysmal those years. If this is true, then it is even a worse indictment on his HOF credentials.
So he was either one of the worst players in the history of baseball from age 32-35, or his defensive skills were not quite as good as everyone makes them out to be, due to the fact that his defenisve replacements those years were better.
I briefly scanned Ozzie Smith's replacements. He didn't have as many games off until he was in his late 30's. But even in his late 30's he was still better than his replacements. This is just eye balling it.
Like you said with the other guys, they probably didn't miss as many games, and the results would be such a small sample size.
The biggest obstacle in any study like this IF YOU COMPARE AGAINST OTHER PLAYERS, is the level of ability of the replacements. Not all teams would have equal ability replacements, thus it could really skew things.
But defense in general is extremely hard to pinpoint. Unless guys are getting the exact opportunities, it is very hard to put the credit so much on one player like everyone does to Mazeroski. Clearly he had many years that his defense isn't quite as good as many say(otherwise there wouldn't be bench players outplaying him).
This sample size is over 5,000 innings from the replacements(noted many were from '69-'72), but 5,000 innings is a lot.
The term "replacement player" is relativley new in baseball stat study. I do feel its a very good starting or reference point, for making some comparisionsor value worth. My question relates to the statistical math created one, not an actual guy who was used as a specific replacemnet, of course.
I often wonder, for theory or formua use, should the replacement level be set as the absoute bare minimum, as is most popular, or another view, that it should be the average, typical, median, Etc., type of positional player average, used for more realistic, real-life like comparisons ? There is merit in both ideas.
Any comments ?
But, I believe that Mazeroski was the best second baseman in history. Nearly everyone who has ever put pen to paper and tried to factor out the effects that muddy the defensive waters that you mention has come to the same conclusion. People who played with him and against him reached the same conclusion.
And as far as qualifying for the Hall of Fame - that's enough. For me, anyway.
The term "replacement Player" in this study above was/is the actual player that replaced the starter.
The term "replacement Player" done in analysis to determine a players worth compared to what a typical player in his stead would do, would be the 'average' level replacement player. Some teams have really good ones, some bad. To evaluate a player, he should not be penalized/rewarded on how good or bad his replacement is(the GM and scouting should be penalized/rewarded). The player should be measured vs. what the typical replacement player would be in his stead.
What is the level of a typical replacement player?? Most have figured that a replacement type player is a guy who is appx 85-90% as good as a league average player. I don't think it can be exactly pinpointed, and I don't think the trickle down effect can be accounted for.
The trickle down effect is if the best bench player has to play 1B becasue the regular 1B is hurt, or can't hit a lefty, then somebody else now becomes the best bench player and may be filling in at a different position, and so forth.
Is it better to measure vs. a league average player, or a replacement level player?
I look at it this way. If the starter gets hurt, it isn't like there is going to be a league average player sitting on the bench. If there is, then it would be a plus to the GM's ability...and that benchplayer would soon become a starter somwhere being that he would be better than half the starters in the league. More than likely, it would be a guy who is well below league average that would be playing.
Is it better to measure vs. the league average player? If a player is measured vs. league average, and he is only a hair below average, then he gets penalized when measured in this fashion. A player who is good enough to play every day is most likely better than any replacement the team could find. This has value. This is where a player like Jim Rice should be getting more credit than the sabermatricians typically give.
So, measuring vs. a repalcement level player will give a more realistic level of a players' value. The only thing I would say, and this is especially true for middle infielders, is that on the defensive spectrum, I don't think this is true. There are plenty of middle infielders on the bench that are actually BETTER fielders than the starters.
I would not reward a 2B by measuring his value to a replacement player that is valued at 85% of the league average. This is a mistake, as the defensive ability of the replacement is not that low, and is probably the same as league average. This is where a lot of Middle Infielders get their values inflated in some of the known metrics. It just isn't a realistic scenario the way they do it.
Dallas, Maz may be the best second basemen every(when ignoring the down phase he missed, that the others have gone through), but I dont think anyone can say that to any high degree of certainty. Knowing how well his replacements fared, I think that certainty goes down even more.
The best fielder ever is a real stretch. I would have expected him to do far better than his replacements if he were considered the best defensive player ever. If he were considered the best ever, i would have thought he would be trouncing the replacemetns up and down...but he didn't.
Dallas, I am not sure it is accurate that every player he played against would say he is the best ever. I am sure there were some coaches in 1961 that saw someone from the 30's and thought otherwise. I'm sure there were some pitchers who would give the nod to the guy behind him.
As for guys who ever put it to pen? How many good studies have even been done on it? If the circumstances are plumping up his fielding numbers, then I am sure everyone would conclude the same thing. Except it can't be done to that high a degree, and what they may all be seeing as a thirsty group is the same mirage.
<< <i>his offense was so bad that he has no business being in the HoF in my opinon. >>
The same can be said about Rizzuto.
Sweet Morsels Toffee and Chocolates
Sometimes baseball "experts" might get too caugt up with statisical evaluation, win shares, relacement values, time era normalization, Etc., to correctly rate "fame" level.
Fame is probably impossible to objectively calculate properly, so much depends on one's personal frame of references.
The HOF, perhaps unfortunately in my pedestrian view, will sometimes recognize the popularity, longevity, or importance, of certain feats and combine them with the player's overall or peak performances, and use those factors ito assist their choices.
Rube Marquard is an example somewhat like MAZ, a very good player, who then (1971 ) held or shared, by perception, a very glamourous or important record, consecutive games won.
The biggest mistake the HOF, or anyone, can possibly make, would be to somehow equate past inclusion shortcomings, with acceptance standards. The old so and so in in, therefore such and such deserves to be in, view, the feeling two wrongs make a right.
I see a few issues with the analysis. Most of the data is going to be from Mazeroski's later years - 69 to 72 when he was not even the regular secondbaseman. Second in the mid-60's when Maz did not play or was hurt his replacement was the starting shortstop Gene Alley. Alley was at the very least a very good fielding shortstop. Interesting that the Pirates elected to move him to secondbase and not just replace Maz at second. So really it is not a replacement level player replacing Maz it is the starting shortstop.
According to Win Shares James ranks Maz with the highest total of all-time. On his top 10 list defensively for seconbaseman aside from Mazeroski you get Hubbard, Grich, Fox, White, Frisch, Trillo, Schoendienst, Sizemore and Gordon. I doubt too many people are going to argue that list. Total Baseball rates him as the best defensive player at any position. He won 8 Gold Gloves so subjectively the people voting thought he was the best. I do not think any of those gold gloves were on reputation as he did not win in 1962 (Ken Hubbs won) or 1968 when he was a regular secondbaseman and Glenn Beckert beat him out.
Regardless of who filled in for Mazeroski, in order for him to be considered "The greatest defensive player of all time," he should do much better than ANYBODY who took his place.
The years he was a part time player actually shed light on him because other guys had a lot of opportunities, as did he. He was only 32 years old to 35 years old. Your point would be more valid if he were 42 years old.
Ultimately, the main point is that his defense is not worth enough to offset his terrible offesne. Also keep in mind how bad his offense would look if he were allowed to bat as a full time player from age 32-41. It would, and did, get ugly fast.
I can't see how anybody can proclaim him the best DEFENSIVE player ever. He 'may' be the best defensive second baseman.
TOtal Baseball and Winshares cannot account for the number of opportunities he got, or the ability of his defensive partners. His high assist and double play totals could certainly be enhanced by factors that other second baseman did not have the luxury of getting. This is why it is important to see how well his replacements did, because they had the same benefits/negatives. The result was that his replacements also saw high defensive totals. Either he, and his defensive replacements are all the best ever, or his defensive totals are most likely inflated.
It is funny that Glenn Hubbard is brought up as the second best defensive second baseman. Being that he is close to Mazeroski in defense, and looking at his offense(he looks to be Maz's equal there too), I guess Hubbard and Maz are pretty darn close in value then. That doesn't say much for Maz.
agree that either Eddie Collins or Bid McPhee, were the best defenders ever, at 2B.
others compare Jose Oquendo, Joe Gordon, Nellie Fox, and the aforementioned Bill Maz, to those two. Maz does have some, although nowhere near unanimous, support, as perhaps the best defensive 2B.
Brooks Robinson, Ozzie Smith, and Tris Speaker, are the most likely selections, among those connoisseurs, as the best defender ever, regardless of position.
No one but Maz had a walk off HR in a World Series seventh game.
You need work on putting your arguments into context (his health declined not skills, his offense was no where near the worst for 2b of his time). It's fine to rail against Maz as he was a weak selection but over dramaticizing and then refuting well regarded statsment like Bill James (who did say Maz may be the best defensive player of all time with plenty of data to back that up) makes your good arguments less impactful.
Maz peak 10 year run (1958-1967)
.264 avg. - 58 runs - 11 HRs - 66 RBI
Frank White peak 10 year run (1978 - 1987)
.265 avg. - 63 runs - 13 HRs- 62 RBI
Yes Maz's OBP and Slugging were below normal so he wasn't a great hitter but he did contribute with his bat.
You mention that value over replacement player, well Maz wasn't replaced that often as he was top 10 in plate appearances 3 times in his career and had almost 600 more ABs than White did over his 10 year period of stats.
You used the years 69 - 72 for your analysis and Maz was hurt in 68 and basically it ended his career and he was forced into a part time role so your analysis is unfair to him as a player to use those 4 years instead of 4 others were he did play injury free. In a scientific study I would call that biased data.
Also he played on some god awful teams even with Clemente.
Nellie Fox, better career BA, and better career OPS+
Red Schoendienst, better carerr BA, and better career OPS+
Bill Mazerowski, the only one of these 3 whose BA was actually BELOW the league average of all players, Red and Nellie were above average compared to their peers.
FA comared to league averages
Nellie Fox, .984 - .977, better by .007
Red S., .983 - .975, better by .008
Bill Maz., .983 - .975, better by .007
Nellie and Red were, in fact, far better hitters,
Nellie has a higher career FA, and Red bettered his peers in FA by a greater margin, than Maz.
Stolen bases do not always indicate actual speed, but they usually do.
Red S. had over 3 times the stolen bases as Maz.
Nellie Fox had over 2 and a half times the steals Maz had.
Also his BA is below the leagues BA for his career by 3 thousands of a percent. He was at or above league average for 12 of his first 17 seasons. Again his last 4 years were when he was hurt and not indicative of his true value. Without those last 4 years he finishes at or above the league for hitting during his career.
You are acting as if Mazeroski was a cripple from 1969-1972. I think the injury is more of an excuse for a complete drop off in hitting. If the man was good enough to play, then I don't think the injury is a good excuse.
If the injury was such a factor, thus zapping any range etc...then how do you answer the following....
From 1969 to 1972 Mazeroski averaged .360 assists per inning.
From 1956 to 1968 Mazeroski averaged .365 assists per inning.
Over the course of a full season that equates to the following...
From 1969 to 1972 that equates to 525 assists for a full season.
From 1956 to 1968 that equates to 532 assists for a full season.
If he was a cripple as you suggest, then how was he able to be nimble enough to move around to get basically the same rate of assists during those post injury years?
It is more likely that his gaudy fielding totals from previous years are part being a great fielder, and part being in a situation that gave him more chances than most, thus inflating what his true defensive value is.
Since we already know that he was nimble enough from 1969 to 1972 to conclude that he didn't have a marked dropped in fielding ability, and since we know that his replacements played at an EQUAL level to him during the same situations throughout his career, then Yes, I would say he did benefit from his environment.
HITTING:
Bill Mazeroski's best OPS+ years were the following....
98,96,95,94,91,91
Since you are using the injury as an excuse, here are his worst ones NOT INCLUDING his HORRIBLE 'post injured' years...
66,66, 78, 80, 80, 84, 87
His stolen base totals were 27 SB, 23 CS. IN other words, he provided in the negative with that aspect of his game.
In summary, he didn't have a single season that was above average.
If you compare that to another defensive wizard like Ozzie Smith. Combining Smith's baserunning and hitting, he had EIGHT season above league average offensively(FIVE JUST ON HITTING ALONE).
No, Mazeroski was not Mario Mendoza, but he is Jose Oquendo.
Here is More:
From 1969-1972 Dave Cash average .092 DP per inning. He was a primary replacement for Maz those years.
For Mazeroski's career he averaged...093 DP per inning.
Oh, and in Cash's three years in Montreal he averaged .060 DP per inning. My how circumstances can change a man. He was 29-31 years old.
The thing that is impossible to tell on fielding is how many chances a guy gets. The closest way to figuring that out is comparing him to other players who play on the same team. Cash, given the same circumstances as Maz, outplayed Maz. Maz was plenty healthy enough knowing that his assist rate was par with the rest of his career.
Maz's subs all played as well, under the same circumstances. I may be crazy, but that is not the best thing to add to a resume of what is being called the best second baseman ever....or the best DEFENSIVE player ever(that ship has to have sailed by now).
If Maz stiikes out in one certain AB, and the Yankees eventually go on to win the 1960 WS, Maz would never get into the HOF.
He just was not that much better than his peers, nor, as posted herein, his actual replacements, to be a HOFer on his defense, and positivley no rational fan would think he is a HOF type of batter, or baserunner.
I am curious where you came up with your numbers.
The numbers for Maz's career are higher than for the years you post - which lead me to believe that in the years you studied he was not always healthy when he was on the field.
His DP rate is the highest of all-time, and I am not certain it is completely a by product of his team. The Pirates pitchers did not give up an inordinate amount of baserunners nor were there K rates particularly low so I see no obvious signs that Maz had more chances to turn two than other players.
Regardless, anytime you can make an argument that makes people either consider changing their opinion or wanting to do more research on it is a very strong post.
Put it this way if you don't know what type of injury Maz had and it's impact on his career you shouldn't be posting about how it did or didn't affect his ability to play.
He broke his ankle in 65 and missed some time (35 games) and by compensating for the ankle he caused damage to his knee that had accumlated into a serious injury starting in 69.
I find it disgusting you would trivialize his injuries because they don't fit your theory for how his career ended.
One thing I found that was interesting was this
according to Total Baseball, his 363 fielding runs is second only to Nap Lajoie. Had he been replaced by a league average second baseman, his team might have scored a third of the runs he saved with his glove.
Also, Maz's best double play rate was 1966 when he turned 160, so if he suffered a serious injury in 1965 it certainly did not affect him in 1966.
I still think Maz is the best defensive secondbaseman of all-time, but again, the argument by Hoopster is compelling and makes me want to evaluate the situation closer.
I would call breaking a bone in a leg a serious injury but I'm not a doctor.
And much as his argument makes me think, I'm not budging. Mazeroski was a phenomenal fielder; he set records for dps and chances accepted in an era where there were fewer base runners than in perhaps any other. That a young Dave Cash - a fine fielder in his own right - was as good as an older Mazeroski does not diminish the argument for Mazeroski.
There are infielders whose stats look artificially good because they don't try for the hard ones; if there is a player in history who fits that description less than Mazeroski, I do not know who it is. Total Baseball, Bill James, and the Sporting News all find Mazeroski to be the best second baseman in history by enormous margins. Despite having his career cut short by injury (or, for the sake of argument, by poor hitting), Bill James credits him with more defensive Win Shares than any other second baseman (there is no such thing as a negative Win Share, so even if he sucked, that total could not go down if he had kept playing). Total Baseball says he was a better fielder than Ozzie Smith and all I can say, given the shaky ground on which defensive comparisons rest, is that I think they are probably wrong, although they may be right. Total Baseball actually ranked him as the 85th best PLAYER of all time - but there I'm sure they went too far.
In the end, we're stuck with defensive statistics that can't ever prove anything, although Bill James' come much closer than anyone else's. Sometimes, contemporaneous accounts can be seen in hindsight as overblown; Nap Lajoie was not a great second baseman, for example, and George Sisler was pretty much a bum after his injury. But in Mazeroski's case, every attempt at a more scientific analysis reaches the conclusion that the people who watched him play, the people who voted him Gold Gloves every year, the people who voted him in to the HOF, were all right. Mazeroski WAS really that good.
Old story, don't know if it's true but I think it probably is. The Reds bet Vada Pinson that he could not take out Mazeroski on a double play. Pinson tried, failed, and left the field limping with his teammates busting a gut laughing at him as he made his way to the dugout. For the sake of argument, let's pretend that Mazeroski was not the greatest second baseman in history. He was still - and I'm not even willing to pretend otherwise - the greatest double play pivot man in history. So that leaves us with a player who was the best at the one thing that mostly defines the position he played. If it turned out that Johnny Bench was not the best at throwing out base runners (he was, but pretend he wasn't) and that the catcher who was the best was actually Tim McCarver - I would support McCarver for the HOF, too.
I'm not arguing that Mazeroski was as good a player as Dick McAuliffe - he wasn't; or that our hypothetical Tim McCarver was as good a player as Thurman Munson. But I think a HOF that doesn't have a spot for Bill Mazeroski, and others who were the very best at things integral to what makes baseball great, isn't worth having. And a HOF that allows in Dick McAuliffe or Thurman Munson isn't worth having either. That's just my opinion, but I'm very comfortable with it.
If he wants to show how Maz had a bad OBP and Slugging (which by default means his OPS is bad) fine. But to use the replacment player theory on his last 4 years to show he wasn't very good defensively well that is a little silly. Like you said Total Baseball pointed out Maz saved the 2nd most runs of all time.
I just wanted to point out that his offense was not historically as bad as people make it out to be. He led all NL 2b in RBI's many times while hitting in the 8 hole. .264, 11 hrs and 66 RBI may not be much offense for today's standards but I still say in context of his time it wasn't bad mediocre maybe and certainly was enough to garner 7 AS game appearances.
Nap certainly was among the best hitters, at any position, of all time, he is light years ahead of Maz in that area, his baserunning is far greatly superior when compared to the below average Maz, as well.
He actually outperfomed his peers at 2B, in FA, by a greater margin than Maz did, twice ( 100% ) as great a margin as Maz. Nap bettered his peers in RF too, Maz who also did, does get a margin advantage of about 24% over Nap. Both were fine, proven, above average defenders, though Nap used a smaller, more inefficient glove than Maz, did not get any games on Astro turf or other well kept feilds like Maz, and of course had to perform in many more grueling doubleheaders.
Nap was a great 2B, by any yardstick, the preceeding opinion is simply not true.
" 7 AS game appearances."
Does that truly have real bearing ? Nellie Fox had 15 appearances, 11 different games, so he must be a better 2B than Maz.
Bert Blyleveen has a mere 2 appearances, since many more pitchers than 2B are selected yearly, Bert has no valid HOF worth.
"His stolen base totals were 27 SB, 23 CS. IN other words, he provided in the negative with that aspect of his game."
Besides showing Maz was a poor baserunner, does this not also show he lacked speed ? Not unquestionably, but very likely.
Speed is usually a big part of great defense, in the middle INF spots, certainly. Two of his fine defensive peers at 2B Fox and Red S., more than doubled his steal total. During Maz' time era, league leadings seasons of 40, 50, or more, steals were commonplace.
"trivialize his injuries"
An injury is part of the game, an actual event which did happen, Durability is a posive factor, it should increase a players' worth or potential HOF value. Great 2B like Eddie Collins and Nellie Fox, were condiered virtual "ironmen" and shpild get some credit for that.
The point about Cash is not that a young Cash was as good as an old Mazeroski but that Cash's DP rate while with Pittsburgh was the same as Maz's career rate which includes his gold glove years.
The assumption, supported by statistics, has always been that Maz was the best in history turning the DP by a very large margin. Would that assumption still exist if Maz had played his career in Cincinnati or Los Angeles - two teams with power pitching in the 60's?
My guess is that had Ozzie Smith remained a San Diego Padre for his entire career he would still be regarded as the best defensive shortstop of all-time. Can the same be said about Maz? Up until Hoopster's post I was always 100% certain the answer would be yes, that Maz is the best defensive secondbaseman of all-time and it was not even close. Now, I still believe Maz is the best but there is some doubt in my mind at least.
I agree Steve is an interesting read, and is quite well informed on baseball.
would you honestly agree with Steve's (Dallas) comment that "Nap Lajoie was not a great second baseman, for example,"
Could one think that might show he has some bias towards Maz, and some potential to not be fully objective in his opinion of him ?
Longevity is a plus but some players just get hurt and can't play anymore at high levels. My point against Hoopster was he was using those years after his injury as proof of his inadequacies. You hit with your legs not your arms so I dont see why its so hard to see how his leg injuries caused his bat to tale off later in his career. Without those years he hits higher than league average for his career and might have carried on his 1966 type stats. Even with a shortened career he still set league records defensivley for his position.
Hoopsters stats are also flawed, he states Maz was above the league average only five years when actually he was 12 out of the first 17 seasons he played. I cannot tell by his argument if he means batting average or some "average" of all stats which he does not explain.
He is a weak HOF but in no means the worst, it just surprises me he has all the hate thrown at him while guys like a Lloyd Waner were weaker selections. Alot of the Frisch gang that got in were just good players, some actually just mediocre compared to other players of their time.
BUT, if the injury were so bad and was hurting his leg etc..
Then how was he nimble enough to amass basically the same amount of assists per inning from 1969 to 1972 as he did the rest of his career??
Wouldn't a leg injury affect his nimbleness in the field if it affected him at the plate? Obviously it didn't affect him too much in the field.
Knowing that it didnt' affect him too much in the field those years, one can't use the injury as a reason to negate those years('69-'72) when evaluating him against his replacements at second base.
Again I state, when looking at Maz and his replacements, WITH THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES, his replacements played as well defensively.
Finally, Aro has basically said it isn't insult to have Gene Alley do as well as a repalcemnt, and Dallas alluded to the same reagrding Dave Cash.
Unless Gene Alley and Dave Cash are the second and third best fielders of all time, then why is Mazeroski only on par with them(and behind Cash), when they played under the same circumstances? Then it should be an insult.
If Mazeroski were indeed the best ever, he should be much better than anyone in his stead, NOT EQUAL.
Morgoth, Total Baseball is just flat out wrong on their fielding runs. They simply don't work. Looking at the info above, there has to be serious questions on Maz being this dominant defensively, and there is a strong possibiity that part of his dominance is stemming from his teammates and circumstances, and not just him.
Morgoth, for the record, I was using OPS+ as juding Maz being below average. He was never above average, and his baserunning didn't push him over average either. His best year was OPS+ of 98. Had he stole 25 bases and got caught only four times, then yeah, he would have. But he was a poor base stealer.
1. Mazeroski was definitely a below average hitter, no argument. But times change, and at the time Mazeroski played the expectations of a second baseman were not the same as they are today, or the same as they were a generation before that. Of the people with the skills to play the position as expected at that time, Mazeroski was one of the best hitters, also. I don't mean to imply that under any circumstances he hit well enough to advance his HOF case, but I don't think that his hitting - under the circumstances in which he played - detracts from his HOF case.
2. Nap Lajoie was an oustanding baseball player; when I say he wasn't a great second baseman I'm referring only to his fielding, which was merely adequate. Tier 1 Hall of Famer and I'd kick out Mazeroski long before I'd kick out Lajoie.
3. The myth of Lajoie's defensive ability traces back to, and only back to, the enormous number of putouts that he made. Huge numbers of putouts equals huge numbers of chances accepted equals a tremendous range factor and an excellent fielding percentage. The problem is one of context, both historical and specific. When Lajoie played, baserunners stole second, or rather tried to steal second, like they all thought they were Vince Coleman. But they weren't, and they got thrown out a ton - a ton more than they get thrown out in any other era. On a normal team, even in Lajoie's day, those extra chances and putouts got split fairly evenly between the second baseman and the shortstop depending on what side the hitter hit from, other base runners, etc. On Lajoie's team, where Lajoie answered only to God and only when he felt like it, that wasn't the case - if there was a putout to be made at second base, Lajoie was by God going to make it himself. He had to play closer than normal to second base to make sure it happened, which reduced his actual range, but the extra putouts more than made up for it and increased his perceived range.
4. If there is any doubt in my mind about Mazeroski due to the inherent squishiness of the statistical analysis it is this - Gene Alley was an absolutely exceptional shortstop. Down this road of doubt lies nothing more than a chicken/egg conundrum and I'm not inclined to go there, but SOMEbody in the Pirates infield deserves a spot in the HOF and Mazeroski makes much more sense to me than Alley.
5. If Bobby Knoop had made it to the majors at as early an age as Mazeroski, then I'd probably be arguing that HE should be in the HOF. I've never gotten to bring Bobby Knoop into any of my posts, and this seemed the perfect opportunity. As it is, not a HOFer, but anybody who hasn't heard of him should look him up - he deserves to be remembered.
You, and others, have said that Mazeroski is the best defensive player ever.
That is a tough statement considering that there are two guys who did just as good as he in his stead.
The injury keeps getting brought up, but being that Maz was able garner assists at the same rate in his part time post injury years, I can't see the injury reason as a strong argument. In those years Cash was fielding better than what is called the 'best defensive player ever.' Unless Mazeroski had a marked decrease in mobility(seemingly not), this just doesn't jive with the best defensive ever title...even at second base. If two guys are as good, then it is very hard to call the third guy the best defensive player ever.
Why does there have to be a Hall of Famer from the Pirates infield? Is it also equally possible that the pitchers threw a lot of ground balls their way? Knowing that the replacements got just as many balls, I think that is very possible.
Good analysis on Lajoie taking all the PO at second. Is that documented? I would be curious to see if that is quantified in some way, or if it is something that grew out of proportion due to a few highlighted instances. I would be surprised if managers allowed him to do that regardless who was batting.
As a big fan of the real old time game, it would be greatly appreciated if you could provide some source(s) for that information.
Skeptical me, finds it unusual all those baserunners thought they were Vince Coleman, who wasn't even born, and kind of surprising Nap was so 'God-like" on his teams, as he did play for three different franchises. No mention whatsoever that the era's great fielders, including H. Wagner and Eddie Collins in additon to Nap, used terrible equipment, played on very irregular and harsh surfaces, and strained to keep their stats high with so many gruelling doubleheaders.
Nevertheless, Steve, I am open-minded, perhaps have too high a defense view of LaJoie, and would truly enjoy reading more about Nap.
Bear in mind that Lajoie played for a team named after himself for the bulk of his career, and was also the manager of that team for about half that time. His "managers", when he chose not to manage himself, were not going to put Nap on the Naps bench, no matter what he did.
James final statement on Lajoie reads:
"I'm not suggesting we throw away the data. I'm not suggesting we should give him zero credit for making extra plays.
But in the thirteen seasons that Lajoie played in Cleveland, Cleveland secondbaseman made 537 more putouts than an average American League team. Their shortstops made 460 FEWER putouts than an average American League Team. I suspect that the net advantage to his team was closer to 77 extra plays than 537. And, for that reason as well as others, I am convinced that the idea that Nap Lajoie was a defensive player of historic stature is without foundation."
Hoopster - Lajoie was THE MANAGER after 1905.
According to James's numbers, Lajoie made 43 extra plays per season over the average second baseman(for the 13 years as manager)
And the SS made 35 fewer plays than the average SS. It sounds as if James is crediting ALL those extras to hogging the throws to second?
Is it possible that Lajoie was better than the average second baseman, and his SS were worse?
Is it possible Mazeroski received all his assists because his pitchers threw him more ground balls than the average player?
What does James say about Lajoie leading the league in Double Plays six times?
He also led the league in assists three times, and was on pace for leader in abbreviated seasons.
I am not sure how being a manager could allow Lajoie to hog double plays. Maybe Lajoie got a good amount of balls hit to him like Mazeroski did. Impossible to tell.
Lajoie also had an exceptional fielding percentage compared to his peers. As bad as fielding percentage is at telling the entire defensive story it is the ONLY thing close to giving some concrete information on the defensive spectrum.
So if Lajoie was that good at fielding the ball cleanly, and that good at turning a double play, and good at getting assists, then why is it such a far fetched idea that he could be that good(or close to that good) in PO?
Mazeroski is getting all this value based on something that is a lot of guesswork, or a shadow. I don't know how such bold proclamations as best defender ever can be used when all the information used is filled with shadowy doubt. His ENTIRE case for the Hall is based on this shadow. Not to mention again that his replacements did as good.
1880's - secondbaseman made 170% more putouts than shortstops
1890's - secondbaseman made 44% more putouts than shortstops
1900's - secondbaseman made 10% more putouts than shortstops
1909 - shortstops made 2% more putouts than secondbaseman
1920 - secondbaseman made 14% more putouts than shortstops
1950 - secondbaseman made 42% more putouts than shortstops
To quote James - "In Lajoie's prime years the relationship between second base putouts and shortstop putouts was flatter than at any other time in baseball history - for most teams. Not for Cleveland, but for almost everybody else. Lajoie's career average of 2.70 putouts per game is not unusual. Bid McPhee averaged 3.08, Fred Pfeffer averaged 3.07 etc . "
Also, to clarify what made James do the research was that when the defensive stats were analyzed in the 70's Lajoie because of the huge amount of his putouts relative to his peers was considered a defensive star. James had read many newspaper and print articles about Lajoie when he played and after and not once did they mention his fielding being anything better than average. Hence, he went back to further analyze the numbers as something appeared amiss. He does say Lajoie was a competent, even a good fielder.
James found something similar at nearly every position - a stat that means nothing when you really think about it. At first base, the stat is assists; in both cases all the stat represents is a choice. Somebody, probably Total Baseball with their nonsensical +1 for this, -1 for that system, found that Bill Buckner was an excellent first baseman. They throw out putouts - since everyone agrees that putouts at first are 99% easy plays, but give fulll credit for an assist. Thus, an absolutely immobile blob of an infielder like Buckner gets moved near the top of the list since the only way he could get the out at first was to toss it there. Agile first basemen who make the safer play of covering the bag themselves are rated as bad fielders. After Dave Kingman, Bill Buckner may be the worst first baseman I ever saw play with my own eyes. Yes, fielding stats are squishy; allowing a formula to overrule what everyone witnessed first-hand is pure laziness. When your system shows that Buckner was a great first baseman and Johnny Bench was a poor catcher you throw out your formula and start over, there are no other options. James formulas confirm - almost without exception - what everyone already knew about the players we've seen play. Ozzie rises to the top, Brooks Robinson rises to the top, Johnny Bench rises to the top, Paul Blair and Andruw Jones rise to the top and on and on and on. When he augments his system with a specific article, well, call it hero-worship if you want but I do not think that there is any statistic, group of statistics or other system that comes within a mile of being as accurate as Bill James at rating defense.
http://jinaz-reds.blogspot.com/2007/10/player-value-part-3a-fielding.html
There is a multitude of formula, much more detailed than James' , which attempt to rate defense.
Regardless of any formula, baseball is very hard to quantify correctly and objectively. Situational impact variance effects stats greatly, and then, defense is even more difficult to properly evaluate than offense.
A LaJoie note,
his final few seasons were with the Phil. As, managed by Connie Mack, It seems highly doubtfull, the iron-willed Mr Mack would allow Nap any self-serving style which would hinder the oveall team performance.
I think this particular thread is among the most interesting ever, herein, for re-evaluation of generally acceted notions about player defense.
dallasactuary - Nice post, and very relevant points. According to James, Theo Epstein before the amateur draft, or when evaluating minor league talent will ask the old school scouts and the stat heads to rank a list of players. Whatever players appear near the top of both lists are the players the Red Sox would prefer to draft.
I view defensive players the same way. Subjectively I think Ozzie Smith is the best shortstop I have ever seen. Objectively the numbers bear it out.
The real player I have difficulty rating defensively is Derek Jeter. Subjectively, I think he is very good, objectively the numbers do not bear it out.
<< <i>allowing a formula to overrule what everyone witnessed first-hand is pure laziness >>
: standing ovation :
As for Rich Dauer, I never thought he was Maz caliber, but others may have been. It has gone without saying but maybe it needs to be said, that I am saying that Mazeroski was the greatest second baseman who played what can reasonably be considered a full career. Bobby Knoop may have been as good as Mazeroski; Dal Maxvill may have been comparable to Ozzie - but they can't be part of a HOF discussion.