Maris and the HOF
markj111
Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
From Bill James online-the free portion-
What do you think of Roger Maris as a hall of fame candidate? He was the MVP in 1960 and 1961, and broke Ruth’s single season home run record in 1961. He also played in several World Series. His career numbers seem comparable to Larry Doby, Chick Hafey, and Hack Wilson. Although he lost playing time due to injuries, he did hit more home runs than 45 of the outfielders in the HOF.
Answered: 6/25/2015
He was not a Hall of Fame quality player. Chick Hafey's Hall of Fame selection is an embarrassment to the Hall of Fame. Maris was a better player than Hafey, probably, but that's not a real standard. Maris wasn't ACTUALLY the Most Valuable Player in either 1960 or 1961, Mantle was, and I think it is improper to bootstrap one award on top of another. It sounds like I am bashing Maris, and I don't mean to do that; Maris was a very good player for about four years. But in all honestly his career is nowhere near to a Hall of Fame standard.
What do you think of Roger Maris as a hall of fame candidate? He was the MVP in 1960 and 1961, and broke Ruth’s single season home run record in 1961. He also played in several World Series. His career numbers seem comparable to Larry Doby, Chick Hafey, and Hack Wilson. Although he lost playing time due to injuries, he did hit more home runs than 45 of the outfielders in the HOF.
Answered: 6/25/2015
He was not a Hall of Fame quality player. Chick Hafey's Hall of Fame selection is an embarrassment to the Hall of Fame. Maris was a better player than Hafey, probably, but that's not a real standard. Maris wasn't ACTUALLY the Most Valuable Player in either 1960 or 1961, Mantle was, and I think it is improper to bootstrap one award on top of another. It sounds like I am bashing Maris, and I don't mean to do that; Maris was a very good player for about four years. But in all honestly his career is nowhere near to a Hall of Fame standard.
0
Comments
<< <i> Maris wasn't ACTUALLY the Most Valuable Player in either 1960 or 1961, Mantle was. >>
So true, but hey you can't just give it to the same guy EVERY year!
You can make a case that Mantle could/should have been the MVP just about every year (except maybe two) from 1956-1964.
ETA Maris was a superior outfielder who had a nice run of power, but I don't think he makes the HOF.
<< <i>
<< <i> Maris wasn't ACTUALLY the Most Valuable Player in either 1960 or 1961, Mantle was. >>
So true, but hey you can't just give it to the same guy EVERY year!
You can make a case that Mantle could/should have been the MVP just about every year (except maybe two) from 1956-1964.
ETA Maris was a superior outfielder who had a nice run of power, but I don't think he makes the HOF. >>
I believe you are right about the voters not wanting to give it to the same guy every year. I'm sure Mays deserved more than he won.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i> Maris wasn't ACTUALLY the Most Valuable Player in either 1960 or 1961, Mantle was. >>
So true, but hey you can't just give it to the same guy EVERY year!
You can make a case that Mantle could/should have been the MVP just about every year (except maybe two) from 1956-1964.
ETA Maris was a superior outfielder who had a nice run of power, but I don't think he makes the HOF. >>
I believe you are right about the voters not wanting to give it to the same guy every year. I'm sure Mays deserved more than he won. >>
End result is you can't really use the MVP as a true measure of who was the best player in a given year........................yeah I know most valuable, not best.
<< <i>...........yeah I know most valuable, not best. >>
Any definition of "most valuable" that is not essentially the same as "best" renders the award meaningless. The fallacies that I see most often by people who try to separate "most valuable" from "best" are:
1. Games won in September are more valuable than games won in any other month
2. Runs driven in are more valuable than runs scored
3. Runs created with home runs are more valuable than runs created with other hits
4. Leading off with a single is more valuable than leading off with a walk
5. Leading off with a double is more valuable than leading off with a walk and stealing second
6. Runs created on offense are more valuable than runs prevented on defense
7. Winning games for one team is more valuable than winning the same number of games for any other team
8. Creating a run in a park where teams score 5 runs per game is as valuable as creating a run in a ballpark where teams score 4 runs per game
With respect to Maris/Mantle, I don't know that any of these fallacies were involved, I agree that MVP voters prefer to "spread the wealth". Mantle, Musial, and Mays could each have a trophy case bursting with MVP Awards, and Maris, Campanella, Banks and a bunch of other big names could have none. I personally don't mind this; there are only so many ways to immortalize great players and giving an MVP to a great player who had a great year rather than giving 10 MVPs to the same player has its merits. But it bothers me much more when players who deserve an MVP don't get one, and don't ever get one. Usually, if not always, that happens because one or more of the fallacies above is in play. Would we view Bobby Murcer or Richie Zisk or Tito Francona differently (or at all for those who have never heard of them) if they had an MVP Award? Strong cases can be made that they each should have one, in Murcer's case an airtight one. (And no, Ron Fairly, Gene Tenace and Mike Epstein never deserved an MVP.)
<< <i> If you take away his record breaking performance, and say he only hit 50-55 HRS that year would he still be getting this talk for inclusion in the Hall? >>
That would make him George Foster except Foster at least had one other season with 40 HRs. Maris was washed up by the time he was 30. If he had stayed healthy until he was 35 which wasn't too uncommon then, he would have had enough HRs to make the hall. Of course, there are hundreds of players that could have made the hall if they had remained healthy.
He should be known for his being a VERY GOOD all around player, as much as his 61HR season.
He had too short of a career to really be considered for the Hall.
<< <i>
<< <i> If you take away his record breaking performance, and say he only hit 50-55 HRS that year would he still be getting this talk for inclusion in the Hall? >>
That would make him George Foster except Foster at least had one other season with 40 HRs. Maris was washed up by the time he was 30. If he had stayed healthy until he was 35 which wasn't too uncommon then, he would have had enough HRs to make the hall. Of course, there are hundreds of players that could have made the hall if they had remained healthy. >>
Would make him Jim Rice too.
Funny thing about it, as Dallas pointed out, when you look at the player in more precise terms, Maris is better than most think.
Guys like Rice get rated incorrectly based on things like RBI totals. If you look at Win Probability Added(which includes all men on totals, making RBI stat meaningless), here is what you have:
Win Probability Added:
Maris 26
Rice 25.8
Maris was a better defender, so it is a no-brainer victory of Maris over Rice. Maris also amassed that in 3,000 less plate appearances(primarily due to missing a lot of games due to injury).
The ironic thing is, the people that will still defend Rice on principles opposite of what I just said(even though they have zero credible evidence), are the same people that also use rings or titles as the defining factor, in which of course Rice has zero, and Maris three.
Maris was not washed up by age 30. His OPS+ from age 30-33 was 111. He was an above averaged hitter every year after age 30. What fools a lot of people is that those were the deadball years...just like it fools a lot of people in regard to Mantle those years too. Maris wasn't washed up, it was the league wide suppression of offense that lowered offensive numbers. His last season his OPS+ was 105, so offensively he was a tick above a league average hitter...I wouldn't call that wash up.
<< <i>Maris was a very good player, probably better than most people give him credit for. And in 1960, when he won his first MVP, he was nearly as good as Mantle. That MVP doesn't bother me at all; Mantle already had multiple MVPs, and Maris had a season worthy of awarding. But the 1961 MVP bothers me. First, Maris wasn't nearly as good as Mantle that year, and second he also wasn't as good as Norm Cash. Had they given the award to Mantle, that would have been fine. But if they weren't going to give it to the best player, on a "spread the wealth" basis, then Cash should have gotten it. The 1961 AL MVP wasn't among the worst MVP picks in history, but it was a pretty bad one. Maris' reward for breaking a record was getting his name in the record books; there was no need to reward him again with an award he didn't deserve. >>
I agree.
I agree with what you said above about the MVP being a meaningless award unless it is going to the best player.
Seems the only way a player can win an MVP is if he is on a team that comes in first by just a couple of games where the loss of his presence would seem to be felt the most. If his team wins by 15 games, then he isn't an MVP because they could still win without him. If they miss first place by 3 games, he isn't an MVP, because he must not be valuable enough if they can't come in first place.
So if you are an MVP caliber player, and your team is up by ten games, I guess you have to break your #1 and #2 SP's arm so they can't pitch anymore, and then your team wins first place by two games, and then you are viewed as 'more valuable' and then you get voted as the MVP.
Or just find a team that plays in a good hitters park ,with a lineup that has fast guys that get on base in front of you; forget about getting on base yourself...and then watch your RBI totals soar. That is a good recipe for MVP too.
Mantle should have about eight MVP's. He is the best player of All-Time during his prime. It would have been fitting for the voters to give him his due. Since they didn't, I feel it appropriate to give it to him now.
<< <i>Maris was a better defender, so it is a no-brainer victory of Maris over Rice. Maris also amassed that in 3,000 less plate appearances(primarily due to missing a lot of games due to injury). >>
And you're right back to the same old "if he had been healthy" argument. That argument disregards players that were able to remain healthy for longer periods of time which obviously allowed for accumulation of stats. When discussing the Hall of Fame in any sport, accumulation of stats will always be the overwhelming factor on the decision to induct. Younger voters, at least in baseball, are slowly starting to accept stats like WAR as a determining factor and I assume that trend will continue.
<< <i>
<< <i>Maris was a better defender, so it is a no-brainer victory of Maris over Rice. Maris also amassed that in 3,000 less plate appearances(primarily due to missing a lot of games due to injury). >>
And you're right back to the same old "if he had been healthy" argument. That argument disregards players that were able to remain healthy for longer periods of time which obviously allowed for accumulation of stats. When discussing the Hall of Fame in any sport, accumulation of stats will always be the overwhelming factor on the decision to induct. Younger voters, at least in baseball, are slowly starting to accept stats like WAR as a determining factor and I assume that trend will continue. >>
Not really using the 'if he was healthy argument', just pointing out that he was responsible for as many Wins above average(with the most detailed offensive statistic) as Rice was, and that he was able to do that in 3,000 less plate appearances. That is a pretty good feat.
I pointed out that he missed a lot of games due to injury as that was the main reason for the less at bats, as opposed to the Ken Phelps factor where he got less at bats because he only played against favorable match ups.
I recognize that the counting stats were always the predominant reason for induction, and that is one of the reason for some of the poor choices(Rice was one). Funny thing though is Rice didn't even have the counting milestones anyway.
WAR is ok. The offensive portion of WAR isn't as good as Win Probability Added...and the defense and positional factors of WAR are a bit dicey, so those have to be taken with less credibility than the offensive elements. Unfortunately, WAR puts the defenisve and positional numbers on even par with the offensive elements, and that is why there are some head scratchers with WAR.
<< <i>Maris was a very good player, probably better than most people give him credit for. And in 1960, when he won his first MVP, he was nearly as good as Mantle. That MVP doesn't bother me at all; Mantle already had multiple MVPs, and Maris had a season worthy of awarding. But the 1961 MVP bothers me. First, Maris wasn't nearly as good as Mantle that year, and second he also wasn't as good as Norm Cash. Had they given the award to Mantle, that would have been fine. But if they weren't going to give it to the best player, on a "spread the wealth" basis, then Cash should have gotten it. The 1961 AL MVP wasn't among the worst MVP picks in history, but it was a pretty bad one. Maris' reward for breaking a record was getting his name in the record books; there was no need to reward him again with an award he didn't deserve. >>
Exactly right!
I'll add my .02; MVP also shouldn't have anything to do with teams finish in the standings, never understood why most of MVP winners are on Pennant/divisional winning teams.
Andre Dawson agrees.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>never understood why most of MVP winners are on Pennant/divisional winning teams.
Andre Dawson agrees.
1987 was the hard ball season when everyone hit dingers and Dawson and Bell hit the most (with exception of McGwire) and MVP voters were simply enamored with the homerun hitters. Trammell deserved it in the AL and Will Clark was probably more deserving in the NL but didn't even get close to winning.
Wow look at 1970 Yaz should have got that one!
<< <i>Bob Allison in 1963, Kirby Puckett in 1988.
Wow look at 1970 Yaz should have got that one! >>
One at a time:
1963: Allison wouldn't have been a bad choice at all, and Kaline would have been a good choice, too. Elston Howard wasn't as valuable as either of them by a long shot. But here's the thing: catchers are never the most valuable players in their league (well, virtually never). Every team needs a catcher, and teams with great catchers win more games than teams without them. And some - how much I do not know - of a catcher's value is in handling pitchers and can't be measured. Given this, is it correct that catchers should virtually never win an MVP Award? When the MVP is given to a catcher in a year when no other player clearly runs away with deserving it, it doesn't bother me. I'm not saying that's the correct way to look at it, just that it's how I look at it. Something for people to consider anyway.
1970: Yaz would have been a fine choice, and Frank Howard would have been a fine choice. Boog Powell wasn't an historically terrible choice, but he was definitely a poor one. Yaz had a recent MVP, which probably hurt him, but if it wasn't going to him, it probably should have gone to Howard. I'd actually have been happy if they'd given it to Jim Fregosi. Fregosi played, IMO, a HOF career for really bad teams in really tough circumstances for hitters, and nobody remembers him (as a player, anyway). He deserved the MVP more than Powell, if not as much as Yaz or Howard, but everyone remembers all of those guys, and would have even if they had no MVPs between them.
1988: There was no obvious AL MVP in 1988 and any of a handful of players had a legitimate case for the award. Puckett is one of them, and so was Canseco, who won it. Rickey Henderson would have been a fine choice, too, as would Boggs. Kind of a coin toss year for the MVP voters, and Canseco winning it doesn't bother me.
As a Twins fan I felt that Puckett should have gotten it in '88. Canseco got it because of 40-40 and Oakland winning the division.
Boggs did have a great year, he should have won it the year before or perhaps Trammell. Boggs seems to dominate most of the numbers, but Trammell is right there and as a Shortstop has some added value. I would have given it to Boggs.
In '88 it should have boiled down to Boggs/Puckett and I like Puckett for his SLG% and play in Center Field. Being a right handed batter gives him a bit of an edge as well. He was a greater value to his team and had some great numbers. Canseco was an "oddball" who could hit for power AND steal bases (we now know why) and that caught a lot of attention.
In 1970 I think the voters simply wanted to give it to a different player and one on a top team. Yaz looks to me to be the best player that year and it's not very close. Howard won in HR's and RBI but Yaz DOMINATED the rest of the numbers. Looks like a better year than his Triple Crown season!
I mentioned '63 because while looking through the stats, Allison's numbers really jumped out at me. He was overshadowed by Killebrew for his entire career, but was a better all-around player and had an awesome year nobody remembers. Mantle deserved it, Oliva had some nice numbers as well. I don't really see Kaline that year. The Twin's big three were pretty dominant.
Hindsight is usually 20/20.
<< <i>I mentioned '63 because while looking through the stats, Allison's numbers really jumped out at me. He was overshadowed by Killebrew for his entire career, but was a better all-around player and had an awesome year nobody remembers. Mantle deserved it, Oliva had some nice numbers as well. I don't really see Kaline that year. The Twin's big three were pretty dominant >>
OK, you're talking about 1964, not 1963. In 1964, B. Robby won and he was a fine choice. Other contenders were Mantle and Killebrew, for their offense, and Fregosi and Ron Hansen for offense and defense. Allison was very good in 1964, but more deserving in 1963.
When I clicked on the MVP I was just getting the voting results and not the statistics and when I searched a different way...................oh well.
Never mind.
ETA B. Robinson was a fine choice in 1964, no argument. Site is working now (Baseball Reference dot com).
<< <i>Can you guys please do a comparison of Clemens, Mattingly and Boggs for 1986? >>
At least going by WAR - which is not exactly my favorite metric - the writers got it right. Clemens was at 8.9, Boggs at 8.0, Mattingly 7.2.
<< <i>Can you guys please do a comparison of Clemens, Mattingly and Boggs for 1986? >>
Mattingly ALL THE WAY!
I eliminate pitchers from MVP consideration simply because they are not full time players. Obviously Clemens had a fantastic year. He won the Cy Young as he should have.
Mattingly played in every game, he led the league in PA, Hits, SLG%, OPS, and OPS+. his batting average was slightly below Boggs'. Mattingly was also a superior fielder even though he played 1st base.
Boggs was not a very good 3rd baseman and that is also usually a power hitting position. Even though MVP awards don't seem to be based much on fielding, I think it's a big part of the game and should be a bigger consideration, especially when the two players are close in hitting.
The only area that Boggs was clearly superior was walks, this shows up in his OB%, however Don scored more runs, also drove in quite a few more, so in this case, he looks more valuable to me.
I feel that walks are now overvalued, unless you are a leadoff guy, or a hitter with a below average BA.
Doesn't seem right to me to value a .350 witter with little power over another .350 hitter with very good power.
<< <i>[
I feel that walks are now overvalued, unless you are a leadoff guy, or a hitter with a below average BA.
>>
Walks are valued precisely what they are, overall about 2/3 the value of a single. They are of equal value as a single with nobody on base, and of varying value differences with men on base...equaling to about 2/3 the value of a single.
As for walks only having real value if being a leadoff hitter, I walked people through this exercise with Clemente and Mantle in the past. Find the post/thread if you wish, but keep in mind that a walk from Roberto Clement with a RH pitcher on the mound AND Willie Stargell batting behind him, is quite valuable, and FAR MORE beneficial to the team to have Stargell hitting with a man on 1st, as opposed to Clemente hitting with nobody on. No Brainer. Clemente's lack of walks and his true subsequent hitting value(vastly lower than Mantle's) is evident in that little study.
The hitters behind Manlte were also shown to be quite worthy of having a walk in front of them to be driven in...so Mantle's walks were valued appropriately, just like 99% of elite hitters are. That was covered in the study too.
Again, all that is known in the run value from the play by play info, so opinion and philosophy have really little merit.
Number three and four hitters have excellent hitters batting behind them. Ironically, the number three hitter usually has a far superior hitter behind him than the leadoff hitter does. Anyway, that has all been looked at. NO myths or guessing, so no need to guess. Give the walk 2/3 the value of a single overall, and you got it right.
Usually the only things that go against this are the number 8 hitters and the pitcher batting behind them. In that case, a walk isn't as valuable. Batters who bat eighth and get a lot of walks, if moved to batting third would see those walks disappear.
Bonds and his lineup was on the borderline of bucking the walk value trend because Bonds was so far ahead of his peers in hitting(and they didn't have much behind him)...but in that case, he can't start swinging at pitches out of the zone, as that would be more outs.
Now that the walk value has been hammered correctly above(which it already was based on play by play), Wade Boggs is the correct answer over Mattingly in 1986.
Wade Bogg's run scored are also manifested in the run scored totals of the guys ahead of him, as he pushed them forward more on the bases so they can score, which a lot of people don't understand on Walks.
The number nine spot in the Red Sox order scored 83 runs that year! That is because of Boggs moving those guys forward efficiently on the bases with walks, singles, and doubles...so Boggs may not actually score the run himself, but he was the man largely responsible for them scoring the runs. For comparison, the number nine spot league average team scored about 57 runs with a similar OB%. So if you are going to rave about Mattingly having more runs scored, don't forget those extra 25 in that instance where a large credit goes to Boggs and his on base ability.
The the thing about Boggs is that he is the only player to be elected to the baseball Hall of Fame twice!!
Yes. Once when he got elected, and then when Jim Rice got elected. If it weren't for Boggs getting on base himself(and also pushing other runners into scoring position) to bloat Rice's RBI totals in the years where he wasn't quite as good a hitter as many think(thanks to those bloated RBI totals made possible by Boggs)...Rice would still by outside looking in. So Boggs got voted in twice.
Heck, even in 1986 Rice finsihed THIRD in the MVP voting due mainly to his 120 RBI. Boggs finished 7th. It was Boggs who got Rice that high in the balloting, and Boggs was a vastly superior hitter!
In 1986 Boggs's Win Probability Added was 6.4.
In 1986 Mattingly Win Probaility Added was 4.5.
That is a big difference, and takes the need out of even looking at RBI and RUns.
The other big accurate offensive measurements point to Boggs, or are of equal value...but the Win Probaiblity is not close by any means and is most accurate of offesnive value to the team.
Since Boggs was a 3B, and Mattingly 1B, where defensive value is debatable, but certainly an edge going to a 3B(even if slight)...it makes Boggs an easy choice over Mattingly.
<< <i>The the thing about Boggs is that he is the only player to be elected to the baseball Hall of Fame twice!! >>
He's not the only one. Reggie Jackson also got elected twice and let Jim Hunter occupy his second spot.
The MVP seems to be like the Academy Awards for the Film Industry... what has the lasting impact over time is not recognized at the time. I suppose if Orson Welles had been a MLB player instead of a Director, its not likely likely the end result would have been different.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>In 1986 Boggs's Win Probability Added was 6.4.
In 1986 Mattingly Win Probaility Added was 4.5.
That is a big difference, and takes the need out of even looking at RBI and RUns.
The other big accurate offensive measurements point to Boggs, or are of equal value...but the Win Probaiblity is not close by any means and is most accurate of offesnive value to the team.
Since Boggs was a 3B, and Mattingly 1B, where defensive value is debatable, but certainly an edge going to a 3B(even if slight)...it makes Boggs an easy choice over Mattingly. >>
All completely meaningless. Boggs hit for average. That's it. So did Mattingly except he at least hit for power. Lead Boggs in every offensive category except walks and BA which was close enough not to matter. Much better defensively than Boggs. Not to mention Mattingly was on a crappy team (other than Rickey). Without Mattingly the Yanks don't win 60 games that year. Win probability is the most ridiculous stat ever and based on assumptions.
<< <i>All completely meaningless. Boggs hit for average. That's it. So did Mattingly except he at least hit for power. Lead Boggs in every offensive category except walks and BA which was close enough not to matter. Much better defensively than Boggs. Not to mention Mattingly was on a crappy team (other than Rickey). Without Mattingly the Yanks don't win 60 games that year. Win probability is the most ridiculous stat ever and based on assumptions. >>
WPA isn't perfect, but it's closer to perfect than it is to meaningless. The three things you're missing:
1. Defensively, Mattingly was not much better than Boggs. Mattingly was a great first baseman; Boggs was a good third baseman. Good third basemen are much more valuable than great first basemen.
2. In 1986 at least, Mattingly did his best hitting when the Yankees were ahead, and his worst hitting when they were behind. Boggs did his best hitting with RISP and when the game was late and close. WPA is capturing this, and its why it shows Boggs being more valuable than Mattingly.
3. Boggs walked more than twice as frequently as Mattingly. You mention that in passing like it doesn't really mean much. It means a lot.
Win Shares does a so-so job of capturing situational hitting, and a great job of capturing fielding value. That system also shows Boggs as the MVP in 1986, followed by Mattingly, followed by Clemens.
<< <i>As much as I respect all the baseball stat geek's here, Skin is my favorite. >>
I have disagreed with Skin many times over the years, and I still remember with pride the two times it turned out that I was right. I'm sure Skin has forgotten the dozens of times he was right. Disagreeing with Skin takes courage because you're almost certainly going to be proven wrong. But I encourage people to do it anyway - politely - because he'll teach you something you didn't know.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>As much as I respect all the baseball stat geek's here, Skin is my favorite. >>
I have disagreed with Skin many times over the years, and I still remember with pride the two times it turned out that I was right. I'm sure Skin has forgotten the dozens of times he was right. Disagreeing with Skin takes courage because you're almost certainly going to be proven wrong. But I encourage people to do it anyway - politely - because he'll teach you something you didn't know. >>
Its actually good to read this. Dallas I have had very minimal interaction with you over the years and I absolutely respect your input and know full well you are a very smart Baseball guy, but there have been times I have thought you were a "Im smarter than everyone guy" but your post here removes that thought from me. Cheer's
<< <i>
<< <i>All completely meaningless. Boggs hit for average. That's it. So did Mattingly except he at least hit for power. Lead Boggs in every offensive category except walks and BA which was close enough not to matter. Much better defensively than Boggs. Not to mention Mattingly was on a crappy team (other than Rickey). Without Mattingly the Yanks don't win 60 games that year. Win probability is the most ridiculous stat ever and based on assumptions. >>
WPA isn't perfect, but it's closer to perfect than it is to meaningless. The three things you're missing:
1. Defensively, Mattingly was not much better than Boggs. Mattingly was a great first baseman; Boggs was a good third baseman. Good third basemen are much more valuable than great first basemen.
2. In 1986 at least, Mattingly did his best hitting when the Yankees were ahead, and his worst hitting when they were behind. Boggs did his best hitting with RISP and when the game was late and close. WPA is capturing this, and its why it shows Boggs being more valuable than Mattingly.
3. Boggs walked more than twice as frequently as Mattingly. You mention that in passing like it doesn't really mean much. It means a lot.
Win Shares does a so-so job of capturing situational hitting, and a great job of capturing fielding value. That system also shows Boggs as the MVP in 1986, followed by Mattingly, followed by Clemens.
<< <i>As much as I respect all the baseball stat geek's here, Skin is my favorite. >>
I have disagreed with Skin many times over the years, and I still remember with pride the two times it turned out that I was right. I'm sure Skin has forgotten the dozens of times he was right. Disagreeing with Skin takes courage because you're almost certainly going to be proven wrong. But I encourage people to do it anyway - politely - because he'll teach you something you didn't know. >>
1. Defensively Mattingly was far superior to Boggs. Third base may be considered more valuable, but Mattingly owned the GG for 10 years (McGwire in 1990?) and Boggs won a couple, one when he played less than 100 games and the other (1995) when Robin Ventura led him in fielding % by over 100 points(?).
2. As far as who did what when, I can't say. If Boggs was far superior in close games that would be a factor. My thought would be that Boston winning the division was why he got it. If the Yankees finish first, I bet Don would have gotten MVP.
3. Boggs walked a lot more, but scored fewer runs, so his walks helped others advance, but he didn't cross the plate himself. A home run eliminates the question, everyone on base scores as well as the hitter, you don't have to depend on the next guy(s).
What hasn't been addressed however is that Mattingly had 106 more total bases in only 50 more PA.
I really can't see how Boggs' 52 more walks are more valuable than Mattingly's 23 more home runs. Every other offensive statistic is pretty close, Don led in hits, runs, doubles, home runs, RBI, SLG, TB, OPS and OPS+. Boggs led in walks and BA which pushed him ahead in OBP.
Mattingly also played in 162 games to Boggs 149 which is more value to your team. Can't help your club in the tub.
BOTH players (along with Clemens) had superb years. I still say Mattingly all the way, but you make a good case that it might be closer than I first thought.
<< <i>Never saw Maris play. Looking at the body of work through the years, I never understood why he was getting the support he did for the HOF. He's not close IMO. And I can remember Maris getting a fair amount of support back during my early collecting / high school days. Never bought it myself. >>
Thanks for getting us back on topic.
I never saw him play either, but have read many baseball biographies on other players that did, and they all agree that Roger was a fabulous player. They are NOT talking about his home runs, but say he excelled in all phases of the game.
I like stats, but here is where guys like Maris and Gil Hodges are unfairly hurt when it comes to HOF voting. People that don't KNOW what great players they were simply look at the (batting) numbers and say "no way". I think Maris' career was a bit too short, although he does qualify, but if you give him credit for all-around play, shouldn't he be given consideration over guys that could just hit?
Hodges is more confusing, from 1949-59 he was a great hitter every year (with the exception of '58 when he was still pretty good) as well as a fabulous fielder.
I am certainly not saying it's a crime these two aren't in, but if their hitting numbers were a little better and they were below average in the field, they would be considered better players because of our love affair with statistics.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>The problem with discounting statistics, which present an objective and unbiased opinion, is that we then replace the evaluative method with personal opinion and gut feelings about the abilities of players, which is a notoriously unreliable method of evaluation. >>
First of all I did not, and do not discount statistics, they give much needed evidence in evaluating performance......................actually hitting performance, other parts of the game are important and either don't measure well or are generally ignored.
More importantly, the players that played with and against Roger Maris and Gil Hodges were also professionals and their opinions carry a lot more weight than someone looking over a stat sheet 50 years later.
I have a rather large stack of books on players during the 1950-1970 time frame and in every single reference about Maris by the players he played with and against, they all say he was a HOF caliber player. That does not seem "unreliable" to me.
Using BOTH methods seems like a good idea to me.
they would be considered better players because of our love affair with statistics.
These statements sure seem like a suggestion to discount (note I said "discount," not ignore) statistics to me. Why utilize objective data that takes into account every single game situation when we can better rely on the opinions (your statement actually proves my point) of aging superstars for evaluation, right?
Like anyone, I enjoy hearing former ballplayers, especially the great ones, reminisce about their experiences playing the game of baseball. But I would be careful about using such recollections to assert that a player was anything more than marginally better (or worse) than his statistics and data already indicate.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>A major flaw in comparing players from different eras is that free agency fundamentally changed the way the game is played. Pre-1975, there was no such thing as a salary drive year, because players could not opt out after their contracts were up. The alternative to not signing with the team that had their rights was to retire. The emergence of player agents created a culture in which personal statistics were more important than the team's success. If Mays, Aaron, Mantle or any of the greats who never had the opportunity to test the market had played in a modern era, you can bet their numbers would be markedly higher. >>
I don't agree with this speculation. All time greats have the will and the drive to be the best regardless of their contract situations. That may be motivation for some players, but I don't see Mantle or Mays playing any harder because they were in a walk year. These guys are all time greats because of the sheer determination, drive and talent to reach that level in the first place.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>A major flaw in comparing players from different eras is that free agency fundamentally changed the way the game is played. Pre-1975, there was no such thing as a salary drive year, because players could not opt out after their contracts were up. The alternative to not signing with the team that had their rights was to retire. The emergence of player agents created a culture in which personal statistics were more important than the team's success. If Mays, Aaron, Mantle or any of the greats who never had the opportunity to test the market had played in a modern era, you can bet their numbers would be markedly higher. >>
I don't agree with this speculation. All time greats have the will and the drive to be the best regardless of their contract situations. That may be motivation for some players, but I don't see Mantle or Mays playing any harder because they were in a walk year. These guys are all time greats because of the sheer determination, drive and talent to reach that level in the first place. >>
Would like to point out that for the older players EVERY year was a "walk" year. After the 1957 season the Yankees tried to cut Mantles salary saying he didn't have as good a year as when he won the triple crown! Ownership had all the power before free agency and the public didn't support players that held out.
I see this differently- the bar for greatness as for a first baseman has been raised over time. Compare Hodges to other first basemen from the late 1940s through 1960 and he was likely the best. Out of the players you listed, all of them followed Hodges by approximately 20 plus years (peak playing seasons) with the exception of Norm Cash.
Part of the problem with any HOF discussions is that we tend to look at today's yardstick in measuring player statistics of 55-65 years ago.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Hodges
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.