<< <i>None of these players are worthy of hall of fame admission. You know a hall of fame player when you see one, and these guys belong in the Hall of Very Good. >>
I'd love to see someone attempt to explain why Ted Simmons should not be in the HOF. >>
I could make a better case for than against with just the smallest amount of research. The fact that he was one and done on the ballot is one of those WTF deals. I've thought he was overlooked because he wasn't Bench, Fisk, Carter and didn't play in NY like Munson. Simmons had a great career though.
<< <i>Well, first of all, you're comparing Garvey to: A) a catcher; a second baseman; and C) a first baseman
C is Tony Perez and is a legit comparison and Perez's resume is better. 100+ more homers. 7 100-RBI seasons vs 5. OPS+ of 122 vs 117. 300 more RBI. 130 more hits. Higher slugging percentage. So Perez, who was a borderline candidate to many guys, is a better candidate than Garvey.
A is Johnny Bench. This one is laughable. First of all, Bench is widely considered one of the two or three best ever at his position. Garvey isn't even remotely close to the discussion of best ever at his position. Secondly, catchers are judged offensively by a slightly different standard and Bench's power trumps Garvey's anyway. And Bench was better defensively than Garvey.
B is Joe Morgan. What you're saying is Garvey essentially has the same offensive numbers as a second baseman. Is that supposed to be a positive? IMHO, it's a big strike against Garvey. First basemen are supposed to provide a lot more offense than second basemen, plain and simple.
Somebody else mentioned Lance Parrish. As a Tigers fan, it kills me that Parrish's back gave out on him in 1986. He was well on his way to the HOF when he got hurt. Heck, he might be the most underrated player in the entire decade of the 80s. He was an outstanding defensive catcher who also put up monster offensive numbers. And then he got hurt and was never the same. And heck, even with that, he'd be a pretty good candidate right now.
So, yeah, still not convinced on Garvey >>
The point of this was:
(1) If you just look at the pure numbers and not who the players are, no one is tremendously impressive in this list. Bench has a very mediocre batting averge, and he's supposed to be the best catcher ever.
(2) I define HOF credentials (IMHO) as someone who consistently dominates the league. This is shown by MVP voting. Garvey had more mention as a dominant player in the league than most of other HOFers in this list. Certainly more than Tony Perez, who never even won an MVP.
(3) If you argue that Bench and Morgan were in a different category because of their defense, then Garvey is one of the best 1st basemen of all time who combined batting with gold glove defense. If you argue that 1st basement need to provide more power numbers, none of those HOFers did squat on the defensive end other than Eddie Murray. Garvey is in the Eddie Murray class for offense and defense (although admittedly Murray is better because of superior batting).
Garvey is a nice player. The analysis above left out OB%...a pretty big omission, and actually what hurts Garvey since his was only around league average.
However, if you want to look at their Win Probability Added, which is one of the most accurate measurements, and includes the context of each at bat(which renders using traditional RBI's meaningless), here are some figures from some contemporaries.
Name........WPA
TOP TIER HOF Schmidt......55 Stargell.......53 Brett...........52 Murray........52 Reggie........50
Reggie Smith....49
Tony Perez.....41 Winfield........41
Darrell Evans......40 Jack Clark........38 Keith Hernandez......38
This is just one advanced measurement, others may have very slight variances(but nothing major). This does not account for defense.
Based on some of the guys that were elected, I can see why cases can be made for ANY of these guys on this list! None of them belong in the top tier HOF group....but when guys like Jim Rice start getting elected, the flood gets have to get opened. After all, these guys were as good as Rice...and guys like Garvey were far more famous than Rice.
Garvey was as good statistically as Rice(when using the most accurate measurements). He was in far more post season glory...AND, if given the 'housewife' test, he was far more famous! The housewife test being, asking all housewives who each was, and Garvey would get the nod.
Sorry for Dawson fans too. No way he is in, while Parker, Keithe Hernandez, D & D Evans, Jack Clark, and Reggie Smith, don't even get a sniff.
But after years of HOF talk, putting Rice in created all this to open it up for all these other guys. It makes no sense to have Garvey OUT, when a lesser skilled and less popular player like Rice gets elected IN.
PS. I put Ozzie on that list even though he was a SS, and all other guys mostly corner men. I don't buy the value given to Smith's defense. I've seen Bill Mazeroski called the best defensive player EVER...yet when I did a study on what he did and compared him to his replacements on his same team, they did EQUAL!! Defensive prowess is often a case of luck and environement + Skill. Separating the skill from the other two is impossible, and to put the same stock into defensive numbers as the more valid offensive numbers, is a mistake. Yet that is how Smith got in.
For all the fans that clamored for Rice....unless you are also clamoring for Garvey, you are a fool twice over.
If I were to do a nomination based on a combination of the advanced hitting measurements + the traditional fan method of 'star' and 'famous' players.
Steve Garvey and Fred Lynn would be the top two guys that belong in the HOF!
Both were the cats meow in their day, both the type of players kids 'wanted to be' when playing wiffle ball....and they both finish high on the housewife test(with Garvey maybe higher than ANYONE from his era).
They both eclipse or are equal to HOFers from their era in the advanced measurements.
AND
They outshine almost everyone of those guys in the traditional fan method of evaluating players based on being a star and famous.
AND
Garvey has the post season glory that everyone always seems to apply to every other player in sports, but ignore when it comes to him....and somehow give Jim Rice a pass for not even having any(go figure).
Oh, and George Foster would be third. He was everything that fans claimed Jim Rice was, but he has two rings(this is part of the traditional fan equation).
Statistical deserving guys like Smith, Hernandez, Jack Clark certainly were better than Garvey...but looking at the other half of the equation(which is also in the HOF criteria), Garvey pulls ahead of them.
<< <i> None of them belong in the top tier HOF group.... >>
Schmidt most definitely does
<< <i>But after years of HOF talk, putting Rice in created all this to open it up for all these other guys. It makes no sense to have Garvey OUT, when a lesser skilled and less popular player like Rice gets elected IN. >>
The idea that we should not follow up one stupid decision with more stupid decisions makes sense to me
<< <i>PS. I put Ozzie on that list even though he was a SS, and all other guys mostly corner men. I don't buy the value given to Smith's defense. I've seen Bill Mazeroski called the best defensive player EVER...yet when I did a study on what he did and compared him to his replacements on his same team, they did EQUAL!! Defensive prowess is often a case of luck and environement + Skill. Separating the skill from the other two is impossible, and to put the same stock into defensive numbers as the more valid offensive numbers, is a mistake. Yet that is how Smith got in. >>
Did you ever compare Smith's assist totals to the assists of the second and third basemen he played along side? It is the best ratio in history. And those were actually good fielders he played alongside, making it even more impressive.
<< <i>For all the fans that clamored for Rice....unless you are also clamoring for Garvey, you are a fool twice over. >>
For as foolish a choice as Rice was, he was better than Garvey
<< <i>(3) If you argue that Bench and Morgan were in a different category because of their defense, then Garvey is one of the best 1st basemen of all time who combined batting with gold glove defense. If you argue that 1st basement need to provide more power numbers, none of those HOFers did squat on the defensive end other than Eddie Murray. Garvey is in the Eddie Murray class for offense and defense (although admittedly Murray is better because of superior batting). >>
Catcher and 2B are on an entirely different level when it comes to importance - and difficulty - defensively than first base is. There's a reason why the worst defensive, least athletic, guys on a team play 1B. Being a "great defensive 1B" really only means something if you're out-of-this-world great like John Olerud (the king at eliminating throwing errors) or Keith Hernandez. Garvey? However good he may have been, he's not in that class. Given that, Garvey needs to be an elite hitter. Simply put, he wasn't. He had some nice years but nothing GREAT.
Speaking of Olerud...
Career OPS+ of 129 trumps Garvey's 117. His best season (1993) trumps Garvey's as he led the league in doubles, hitting, OBP, OPS, and OPS+ while winning a World Series title. Nearly the same number of HRs and RBI as Garvey. Higher BA, OBP, SLUG% than Garvey. Same number of Gold Gloves while being a much better defensive player. Same number of 20 HR seasons. More 90 RBI seasons.
So...you wanna make the case for Olerud being a HOF'er over Garvey?
<< <i> (2) I define HOF credentials (IMHO) as someone who consistently dominates the league. This is shown by MVP voting. Garvey had more mention as a dominant player in the league than most of other HOFers in this list. Certainly more than Tony Perez, who never even won an MVP >>
Just because someone voted for him as one of the most valuable players, does not mean he really was. The answer to foolish votes by the writers in the past is not to use such foolishness as justification for it to continue.
Bench and Morgan were both among the very best in history at their position. Garvey is below 30th best ever at first, behind Dick Allen, Keith Hernandez and Jeff Bagwell (and Will Clark and plenty others not in the Hall-of-Fame)
Tony Perez is perhaps the weakest Hall-of-Fame choice ever from the writers (alongside Rice, perhaps better than Sutter, Gossage and Hunter)
<< <i> None of them belong in the top tier HOF group.... >>
Schmidt most definitely does
<< <i>But after years of HOF talk, putting Rice in created all this to open it up for all these other guys. It makes no sense to have Garvey OUT, when a lesser skilled and less popular player like Rice gets elected IN. >>
The idea that we should not follow up one stupid decision with more stupid decisions makes sense to me
<< <i>PS. I put Ozzie on that list even though he was a SS, and all other guys mostly corner men. I don't buy the value given to Smith's defense. I've seen Bill Mazeroski called the best defensive player EVER...yet when I did a study on what he did and compared him to his replacements on his same team, they did EQUAL!! Defensive prowess is often a case of luck and environement + Skill. Separating the skill from the other two is impossible, and to put the same stock into defensive numbers as the more valid offensive numbers, is a mistake. Yet that is how Smith got in. >>
Did you ever compare Smith's assist totals to the assists of the second and third basemen he played along side? It is the best ratio in history. And those were actually good fielders he played alongside, making it even more impressive.
<< <i>For all the fans that clamored for Rice....unless you are also clamoring for Garvey, you are a fool twice over. >>
For as foolish a choice as Rice was, he was better than Garvey >>
I said none of them on the list belong in the top tier group. The top tier group includes Schmidt, Brett, Murray, Stargell, Reggie from the list I put up.
The fact that Ozzie Smith got all those assist despite playing next to top third baseman could just as well mean that more balls were simply hit in his direction. The Cardinals had a very low strikeout pitching staff, and no matter how you account for all possible scenarios, one simply cannot adjust for the fact that some players simply had more balls hit to them(or more routine hit balls) than other equally skilled fielders, thus the higher assist totals .
My personal view is that only those guys in 'My' TOp tier group who had a combination of longevity and league dominance belong.
HOWEVER,
Based on the voting results and the HOF criteria(which includes more than their numbers), Garvey has MORE of a claim than Jim Rice and Dawson. Fred Lynn has more of a claim than Jim Rice, Dawson, Puckett.
My list above ranks them based on Win Probability Added(the most comprehensive offensive measurement). WAR is awful(especially with the Voodoo of the defensive and position adjustments).
<< <i>(3) If you argue that Bench and Morgan were in a different category because of their defense, then Garvey is one of the best 1st basemen of all time who combined batting with gold glove defense. If you argue that 1st basement need to provide more power numbers, none of those HOFers did squat on the defensive end other than Eddie Murray. Garvey is in the Eddie Murray class for offense and defense (although admittedly Murray is better because of superior batting). >>
Catcher and 2B are on an entirely different level when it comes to importance - and difficulty - defensively than first base is. There's a reason why the worst defensive, least athletic, guys on a team play 1B. Being a "great defensive 1B" really only means something if you're out-of-this-world great like John Olerud (the king at eliminating throwing errors) or Keith Hernandez. Garvey? However good he may have been, he's not in that class. Given that, Garvey needs to be an elite hitter. Simply put, he wasn't. He had some nice years but nothing GREAT.
Speaking of Olerud...
Career OPS+ of 129 trumps Garvey's 117. His best season (1993) trumps Garvey's as he led the league in doubles, hitting, OBP, OPS, and OPS+ while winning a World Series title. Nearly the same number of HRs and RBI as Garvey. Higher BA, OBP, SLUG% than Garvey. Same number of Gold Gloves while being a much better defensive player. Same number of 20 HR seasons. More 90 RBI seasons.
So...you wanna make the case for Olerud being a HOF'er over Garvey? >>
Olerud is from a different era...an era were OPS+ was easier to separate from league average. Same with WPA.
Win probablity added is far more accurate than OPS+ Olerud does beat Garvey 33 to 27. However, he did it in the easier era to separate from the league average...so those are almost equal.
You also must not have read what I wrote.
The inclusion is based on the advanced measurement + the traditional fan method of popularity and fame(which are part of the HOF criteria).
Olerud and Garvey are nearly equal in the advanced measurement.
Garvey is literally in a different universe on the other half of the equation.
THat equals to a simple win based on the HOF criteria...for Garvey.
<< <i>(3) If you argue that Bench and Morgan were in a different category because of their defense, then Garvey is one of the best 1st basemen of all time who combined batting with gold glove defense. If you argue that 1st basement need to provide more power numbers, none of those HOFers did squat on the defensive end other than Eddie Murray. Garvey is in the Eddie Murray class for offense and defense (although admittedly Murray is better because of superior batting). >>
Catcher and 2B are on an entirely different level when it comes to importance - and difficulty - defensively than first base is. There's a reason why the worst defensive, least athletic, guys on a team play 1B. Being a "great defensive 1B" really only means something if you're out-of-this-world great like John Olerud (the king at eliminating throwing errors) or Keith Hernandez. Garvey? However good he may have been, he's not in that class. Given that, Garvey needs to be an elite hitter. Simply put, he wasn't. He had some nice years but nothing GREAT.
Speaking of Olerud...
Career OPS+ of 129 trumps Garvey's 117. His best season (1993) trumps Garvey's as he led the league in doubles, hitting, OBP, OPS, and OPS+ while winning a World Series title. Nearly the same number of HRs and RBI as Garvey. Higher BA, OBP, SLUG% than Garvey. Same number of Gold Gloves while being a much better defensive player. Same number of 20 HR seasons. More 90 RBI seasons.
So...you wanna make the case for Olerud being a HOF'er over Garvey? >>
With this post you have pretty much made it clear that you believe Olerud was a better overall 1st baseman than Garvey. So how is it even remotely POSSIBLE that Garvey garnered 42.6% HOF voting in 1995 and lasted all 15 years of eligibility on the ballot, whereas Olerud didn't make it past his first eligible year with an absolutely atrocious 0.7% HOF vote, if Olerud is more deserving of Hall election based on stats alone? How is it possible to have THAT much disparity between the two 1st basemen in regards to HOF voting?
Have read this whole thread and figured I'd make a comment regarding the WPA stat. I've posted before that I'm not a huge fan of these type's of stats but I won't argue they can be useful when analyzing value but any stat that doesn't think Johnny Bench is a top tier HOF'er is a little flawed IMO. A page back it's suggested that players like Dwight Evans, Winfield and Ted Simmons had a greater or equal value than Bench. I'm not sure how anyone can argue that with a straight face.
<< <i>Have read this whole thread and figured I'd make a comment regarding the WPA stat. I've posted before that I'm not a huge fan of these type's of stats but I won't argue they can be useful when analyzing value but any stat that doesn't think Johnny Bench is a top tier HOF'er is a little flawed IMO. A page back it's suggested that players like Dwight Evans, Winfield and Ted Simmons had a greater or equal value than Bench. I'm not sure how anyone can argue that with a straight face. >>
Even as much as I like Dwight Evans(see avatar lol), I'm not going that far
<< <i>Have read this whole thread and figured I'd make a comment regarding the WPA stat. I've posted before that I'm not a huge fan of these type's of stats but I won't argue they can be useful when analyzing value but any stat that doesn't think Johnny Bench is a top tier HOF'er is a little flawed IMO. A page back it's suggested that players like Dwight Evans, Winfield and Ted Simmons had a greater or equal value than Bench. I'm not sure how anyone can argue that with a straight face. >>
Mick, that is offensive only.
Much of Bench's value comes from the top tier catching ability...and he had a great prime. However, you may also be fooled by his RBI totals. If you like RBI, then you must LOVE WPA, because it puts into context how well a hitter does in every situation with runners on base(so it is RBI on steroids).
Mick, it includes all hitting events with men on base, etc... so the guys who had more hits with men on base, etc...get a higher value.
Also, you have to look at prime and career. Bench's prime in that figure is high. His career was short, so his career total isn't as high.
Also, compare Simmons and Bench and their career traditional totals.
Simmons did that with over 1,000 more career plate appearnces(more old man at bats)...and he was a beast with his men on base hitting.
So it wouldn't be surprising that they are close in the WPA stat. When you figure that Simmons has some all-time type increase with his men on base hitting, it is fairly easy to see why those WPA figures are the same. The play by play data doesn't lie. It may shake some previously erroneous held beliefs...but the millions of play by play data is what it is, which is exactly what happened.
I added Evans in there. One would have to be blind to not see that Evans was actually superior to Bench offensively. Add in that he played longer into his old man years(with over 2,000 more career plate appearances), it is a slam dunk.
To the Evans poster above...you should be going that far! Evans is probably one of the MOST desrrving HOF players(based on MERIT), that is not in the Hall. I'd be po'ed if I were you
PS. In essence, Bench is in there over Simmons for the same reason why Garvey should be in over Rice/Dawson...the fame and popularity part that are part of the Hall's criteria. Bench has it. Garvey has it. Evans unfortunately does not. The stats posted above don't lie...that is what happened. The other stuff is up for debate.
I for one agree that Simmons has always been underrated and gotten bum rap but I watched both guys catch for most of there careers and Simmons was in no way Bench's equal. Those kind of stats don't factor in the effect Bench had on the others teams game. They simply didn't wanna run on him. Even the stat guru bill James admits that the defensive metrics used simply can't capture Bench's ability behind the plate. I firmly believe that blindly looking at stats to analyze players without taking into consideration the way there contemporaries felt about them is short sighted. My point being that Bench's peers felt he was one of if not the best catcher ever. I can appreciate what the stats say but I just feel there only half the story.
PS. In essence, Bench is in there over Simmons for the same reason why Garvey should be in over Rice/Dawson...the fame and popularity part that are part of the Hall's criteria. Bench has it. Garvey has it. Evans unfortunately does not. The stats posted above don't lie...that is what happened. The other stuff is up for debate.
Mick, this is what I edited to add above. And what you just wrote above would exemplify why Garvey and Lynn would be slam dunk HOFer's over guys like Rice/Dawson.
Garvey and Lynn epitomize the non statistical HOF criteria. They are close enough or better statistically, that they make the writers look foolish for not electing them, and instead electing Dawson/Rice.
The stats however, tell far more than half the story. Sometimes, objectiveness hurts the subjective view and isn't easy to accept, but baseball hitting stats are SOOOO precise, that htey trump any opinion.
Also, Bench's arm was unequaled...and the WPA above does NOT factor that...so your eyes aren't lying there!
Also, in the era of the rabbit baserunning...benches ability to shut the running game down was indeed a positive factor. But his offensive stats aren't misleading at all. They are what they are.
<< <i>Have read this whole thread and figured I'd make a comment regarding the WPA stat. I've posted before that I'm not a huge fan of these type's of stats but I won't argue they can be useful when analyzing value but any stat that doesn't think Johnny Bench is a top tier HOF'er is a little flawed IMO. A page back it's suggested that players like Dwight Evans, Winfield and Ted Simmons had a greater or equal value than Bench. I'm not sure how anyone can argue that with a straight face. >>
Mick, that is offensive only.
Much of Bench's value comes from the top tier catching ability...and he had a great prime. However, you may also be fooled by his RBI totals. If you like RBI, then you must LOVE WPA, because it puts into context how well a hitter does in every situation with runners on base(so it is RBI on steroids).
Mick, it includes all hitting events with men on base, etc... so the guys who had more hits with men on base, etc...get a higher value.
Also, you have to look at prime and career. Bench's prime in that figure is high. His career was short, so his career total isn't as high.
Also, compare Simmons and Bench and their career traditional totals.
Simmons did that with over 1,000 more career plate appearnces(more old man at bats)...and he was a beast with his men on base hitting.
So it wouldn't be surprising that they are close in the WPA stat. When you figure that Simmons has some all-time type increase with his men on base hitting, it is fairly easy to see why those WPA figures are the same. The play by play data doesn't lie. It may shake some previously erroneous held beliefs...but the millions of play by play data is what it is, which is exactly what happened.
I added Evans in there. One would have to be blind to not see that Evans was actually superior to Bench offensively. Add in that he played longer into his old man years(with over 2,000 more career plate appearances), it is a slam dunk.
To the Evans poster above...you should be going that far! Evans is probably one of the MOST desrrving HOF players(based on MERIT), that is not in the Hall. I'd be po'ed if I were you
PS. In essence, Bench is in there over Simmons for the same reason why Garvey should be in over Rice/Dawson...the fame and popularity part that are part of the Hall's criteria. Bench has it. Garvey has it. Evans unfortunately does not. The stats posted above don't lie...that is what happened. The other stuff is up for debate. >>
I was very surprised Evans was left off the VC ballot. I do believe Dwight is overlooked/under valued, whatever someone wants to call it. But, at the end of the day nothing I can do about it.
If your only comparing Evans to Bench using offensive stats how is that a slam dunk skins? Evans was a right fielder of course he lasted longer than Bench but In his prime Bench's value far out weighs Evans value. Here's a question I'd like you to think about and answer. Pick either Evans or Bench to build a team around based on there prime years who do you choose and why?
WAR needs to be made into a WAR per-162 games played stat. WAR on it's own never takes into account longevity, but WAR per-162 games played makes much more sense and would give us a greater understanding of how good a player was.
<< <i>If your only comparing Evans to Bench using offensive stats how is that a slam dunk skins? Evans was a right fielder of course he lasted longer than Bench but In his prime Bench's value far out weighs Evans value. Here's a question I'd like you to think about and answer. Pick either Evans or Bench to build a team around based on there prime years who do you choose and why? >>
I'm saying it is a slam dunk offenisvely for career totals.
Prime/Career is certainly another aspect. Like I said above, if you use those WPA figures and just measure their primes, then some of those sports will switch around.
Mick, I would pick Bench because his defensive reputation is merited(his arm was not a lie, and it was his, not a result of other players on the team), and he had a strong consistent prime. Plus I think he could have played longer. He retired and he was still a league average hitter.
Also, I do look at guys who may have been robbed a little because they were injured/banged up. That is why I would give Lynn an even higher ranking, because his talent was higher than his 'value'...and since his value was there with his fame, that makes him higher than dawson/rice types.
<< <i>WAR needs to be made into a WAR per-162 games played stat. WAR on it's own never takes into account longevity, but WAR per-162 games played makes much more sense and would give us a greater understanding of how good a player was. >>
The major problem with WAR is that it gives the defensive measurement equal validity to the offensive measurement.
The defensive measurements are partly based on voodoo.
The next problem is the positional adjustment they give to the offensive side. For one, nailing down a precise position adjustment isn't nearly as valid as the best offensive measurements.
If you took WAR offensive(WITHOUT the postiion adjustment), then that would be ok.
If you then give the defensive portion less weight(since it is not nearly as valid as the offensive portion without the position adjustment), then your onto something.
As for using per 162 games, that has problems with value measurement...because a guy that can play 162 games with a .950 OPS is of more value than a guy who only plays 130 games with a .950 OPS.
Or more per your example, a guy that plays 162 games with a .950 OPS is of more value than a guy who plays 130 games with a .965 OPS...yet your per/162 would give the guy with less games more value
I'm a small Hall guy I don't think that's to popular these days. I also think the hall has way to many marginal players in it. Dawson, Rice etc. My way of thinking is to judge players based on there era compared to there peers and this why I'd argue against Evans, Simmons and others like them. They were just overshadowed by others. Skins I can tell your a stat guy and that's great because guys like you and I can debate about baseball all day and like I've posted before there are few things more enjoyable than that.
<< <i>WAR needs to be made into a WAR per-162 games played stat. WAR on it's own never takes into account longevity, but WAR per-162 games played makes much more sense and would give us a greater understanding of how good a player was. >>
The major problem with WAR is that it gives the defensive measurement equal validity to the offensive measurement.
The defensive measurements are partly based on voodoo.
The next problem is the positional adjustment they give to the offensive side. For one, nailing down a precise position adjustment isn't nearly as valid as the best offensive measurements.
If you took WAR offensive(WITHOUT the postiion adjustment), then that would be ok.
If you then give the defensive portion less weight(since it is not nearly as valid as the offensive portion without the position adjustment), then your onto something.
As for using per 162 games, that has problems with value measurement...because a guy that can play 162 games with a .950 OPS is of more value than a guy who only plays 130 games with a .950 OPS.
Or more per your example, a guy that plays 162 games with a .950 OPS is of more value than a guy who plays 130 games with a .965 OPS...yet your per/162 would give the guy with less games more value >>
WAR already takes into account the amount of games played, as WAR is accumulated. So a per-162 games played WAR would still take into account games played and would negatively affect a player's WAR per-162 games played who played less games.
<< <i>I'm a small Hall guy I don't think that's to popular these days. I also think the hall has way to many marginal players in it. Dawson, Rice etc. My way of thinking is to judge players based on there era compared to there peers and this why I'd argue against Evans, Simmons and others like them. They were just overshadowed by others. Skins I can tell your a stat guy and that's great because guys like you and I can debate about baseball all day and like I've posted before there are few things more enjoyable than that. >>
Mick,
I am with you.
I posted that top tier...Schmidt, Brett, Murray, Stargell, Reggie. Those guys all had long careers AND were top five dominant in their primes for several years! To me, that is HOF.
Guys that fell short in longevity(unless they were top two dominant for several seasons), shouldn't be in.
Bench was on that list, but he was a premier catcher...so he would be top tier too, even though he fell a little short career length.
Reason I am arguing for Lynn/Garvey, is because I do that to show the foolishness of the elections of Rice/Dawson.
Lynn/Garvey were nearly equal statistically to those guys, and they were MORE popular and known, with greater intangibles(such as post season stuff, eye test stuff).
But really, I agree for small Hall too.
Putting in Sutter was awful. Quisenberry has equal claim.
It just gets ridiculous when you keep lowering the bar, because then you get more and more equals.
<< <i>None of these players are worthy of hall of fame admission. You know a hall of fame player when you see one, and these guys belong in the Hall of Very Good. >>
Just very good? 3 of the best managers in the history of the game? Perhaps you were talking just about the players (then I agree with you).
WAR already takes into account the amount of games played, as WAR is accumulated. So a per-162 games played WAR would still take into account games played and would negatively affect a player's WAR per-162 games played who played less games. >>
SPortscardtheory, my mistake!
I read it wrong the first time! I was thinking per GAME when I first read your post. Sorry, brain fart.
You are right, per 162 games does what you are saying.
However, that is dangerous if you are judging a career!
A guy who plays till age 42 will be negatively impacted compared to a guy who was not good enough to play till age 35.
The guy who plays till 42 should have credit for those extra seven seasons. Per 162 games will actually give him NEGATIVE points for being good enough to play longer!
But forget WAR. The defensive portion blows! Maybe use the defensive portion and put its value in half, then maybe it will be better.
I don't think rice or Dawson belong and because of that I don't think Evans or Lynn do either. Lynn is interesting because he just ran into to many walls!! He was on a path to the hall before he crippled hisself I'd agree on that. When it comes to Bench's bottom line stats offensively I'd just argue that when he was at his best which is how catchers are usually judged in my opinion because of the nature of the position. He was exceptional offensively, MVP caliper. Hitting 40 home runs in an era where 40 was huge. Also if you use the angle where you judge players against previously elected HOF's Bench fits nicely along side the Berra's and Cochrane's but I'm not as sure about Evans spot next to Aaron, Ruth and Robinson. Although I've already said I prefer to look at players value against there peers its just a thought.
I have more to highlight the longevity issue...but that may require a whole new thread. Go back and check the Rice/Murray debates...that highlights that aspect well!
I don't think rice or Dawson belong and because of that I don't think Evans or Lynn do either. Lynn is interesting because he just ran into to many walls!! He was on a path to the hall before he crippled hisself I'd agree on that. When it comes to Bench's bottom line stats offensively I'd just argue that when he was at his best which is how catchers are usually judged in my opinion because of the nature of the position. He was exceptional offensively, MVP caliper. Hitting 40 home runs in an era where 40 was huge. Also if you use the angle where you judge players against previously elected HOF's Bench fits nicely along side the Berra's and Cochrane's but I'm not as sure about Evans spot next to Aaron, Ruth and Robinson. Although I've already said I prefer to look at players value against there peers its just a thought. >>
Mick, I am pretty lock step with you on all that.
I agree that Lynn is interesting. I kinda feel a little cheated with him. He had more that we didn't see.
He also exemplifies the problems with defensive measurements. Most measurements put him at league average rating. Those are all primarily based on total of Putouts for outfielders. As I pointed out in the Mazeroski article(and I have another post I am working on to show another angle of that too!), defensive results are often simply a matter of pitching staff, environment, and luck of the balls that come your way! Lynn was a beast out there. The running into walls highlights it perfectly!
As for judging the previous eras, that works ok from after WWII up till about 1992. However, the era of 1993 onward drastically changed. The era before WWII was(especially 1900-1930) was also a different animal. It would be hard to do that. Like you said though, it is just another way of looking at it....so why not!
<< <i>(3) If you argue that Bench and Morgan were in a different category because of their defense, then Garvey is one of the best 1st basemen of all time who combined batting with gold glove defense. If you argue that 1st basement need to provide more power numbers, none of those HOFers did squat on the defensive end other than Eddie Murray. Garvey is in the Eddie Murray class for offense and defense (although admittedly Murray is better because of superior batting). >>
Catcher and 2B are on an entirely different level when it comes to importance - and difficulty - defensively than first base is. There's a reason why the worst defensive, least athletic, guys on a team play 1B. Being a "great defensive 1B" really only means something if you're out-of-this-world great like John Olerud (the king at eliminating throwing errors) or Keith Hernandez. Garvey? However good he may have been, he's not in that class. Given that, Garvey needs to be an elite hitter. Simply put, he wasn't. He had some nice years but nothing GREAT.
Speaking of Olerud...
Career OPS+ of 129 trumps Garvey's 117. His best season (1993) trumps Garvey's as he led the league in doubles, hitting, OBP, OPS, and OPS+ while winning a World Series title. Nearly the same number of HRs and RBI as Garvey. Higher BA, OBP, SLUG% than Garvey. Same number of Gold Gloves while being a much better defensive player. Same number of 20 HR seasons. More 90 RBI seasons.
So...you wanna make the case for Olerud being a HOF'er over Garvey? >>
Olerud never won an MVP. He only finished in the top 10 for MVP voting one time. So during his playing days, no one ever considered Olerud as a dominating player in the league. Garvey won the MVP once, was runner up once, and was 6th three more times. He was consistently up there as one of the best players and an elite hitter during his era. Again, to repeat the point, Garvey was an All Star ten times. Olerud only twice. During the times that each of these players played, Garvey was considered elite, and Olerud was not. And speaking of eras, Olerud played during the heart of the steroid era. I'm not saying he was a user, but you never know. Everyone's numbers were bloated during that era. If Olerud played during the 70s, and he had his same numbers, sure, I might put an argument for him. However, he played in the roid era, so fairly or unfairly, his numbers will be compared w/ his doped up peers. And speaking of fielding, Olerud only won 3 Gold Gloves, which is fewer than Garvey's four.
Edit: I just wanted to add one more thing. There's no question that Garvey is a borderline candidate. He completely does not deserve to be a first ballot candidate, and probably deserves to be where he is now, in the hands of the Veterans Committee. However, saying that, the Veterans Committee basically puts in borderline candidates (for players), and I believe that Garvey has done enough to get in (to the Hall of Just Barely Good Enough).
<< <i>Olerud is from a different era...an era were OPS+ was easier to separate from league average. Same with WPA >>
From 1970 to 1990 Steve Garvey ranked 34 in WPA and 71 in OPS+ (minimum 5000 plate appearances)
From 1990 to 2010 Olerud ranks 25 and 37
It may have been easier to separate from league average, but Olerud separated himself further even from those who were above average >>
So giving Olerud the slight edge in the WPA, and then considering the other half of the equation....it makes Garvey the more logical choice.
So again, having Dawson/Rice in the HOF and not Garvey, is foolish.
Like I said above, my personal view is only the guys who had the combination of long careers and were the elite top five performers in their peak belong. Those guys are rare. Once you start adding the Rice/Dawson's of the world, then you open a whole new batch of players that have equal or better cases, like Garvey.
PS. I'm not sure how you determed those rankings and who you included, but here is each of their best league finishes in WPA.
I just think if Carter is in then Ted Simmons should be in. I can agree with the comments about Bench. He was a great catcher and just a lock for the HOF but Simmons should be in also.
As a Dodger fan, I throw my vote for Garvey and agree with the comments in this thread.
That said, one argument I'd like to throw out there is the over-reliance in WAR in defining a player's greatness when the stat does have flaws. The player that I constantly believe is overrated because of WAR is Joe Morgan. While I wouldn't argue that he doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame, I don't believe that he's the best of the best players of his era.
I personally believe that a big reason why Joe Morgan's Career WAR is so high is that teams chose to have their middle infielders in the 1960's and 1970's field first and as a result most couldn't hit a lick (I'm looking at you Ray Oyler and Mark Belanger [who I know played in the opposite league as Joe]). As a result, all it took for a second baseman or shortstop to have a decent WAR was to have mediocre batting average and average power. A case in point for this argument is that Bobby Grich who isn't even on the expansion era ballot has a career WAR of 71.0 and no one is crying for his candidacy even though 71.0 is better than the career numbers for Al Simmons, Ed Delahanty, Tony Gwynn, Frankie Frisch, Johnny Mize, Ernie Banks, Goose Goslin, Dave Winfield and plenty of others.
I'm hoping that WAR is adjusted someday to take into account what all your contemporaries throughout baseball did (at least to some degree) and not just the other players to play the position you played.
What is going on with the Hall of Fame? I saw they are having a vote for players whose contributions came after 1973. The nominees are Dave Concepcion, Steve Garvey, Tommy John, Dave Parker, Dan Quisenberry and Ted Simmons. Is this going to turn into the Frankie Frisch era all over again? I don't see any of those guys as clear cut Hall of Famers, much less worthy of a special ballot. My standard has always been "was the game made better because this player played it?" That might put Quisenberry in (with whom I share your affinity) and John simply for the surgery if you wanted to stretch it. Parker was almost great and as a catcher Simmons was a great DH. Have I lost my mind, or is this just going to dilute the Hall to a level far beyond its already sad state? Asked by: mikewright
Answered: 11/7/2013 All of those players are far better qualified for the Hall of Fame than, let us say, Chick Hafey, Travis Jackson, Jesse Haines or Ross Youngs. The standards for the Hall of Fame have not been going down; they have been going up, and they have been going up at an unrealistic pace, so that the players of the last 40 years are being held to a dramatically higher standard than those of previous generations. I don't think it is a bad idea to try to address that.
<< <i>I personally believe that a big reason why Joe Morgan's Career WAR is so high is that teams chose to have their middle infielders in the 1960's and 1970's field first and as a result most couldn't hit a lick (I'm looking at you Ray Oyler and Mark Belanger [who I know played in the opposite league as Joe]). >>
That is a big reason -- and it is exactly why Morgan and Grich should be ranked so highly. If the Reds didn't have Morgan at second base, they would have likely been stuck with a .220 hitter with no power. If the Dodgers didn't have Garvey at first base, they could have had Buckner or Joe Ferguson or any number of guys who could reach base and hit home runs almost as well
(the other reason is that a .392 obp from Morgan or .371 from Grich are very good; .329 from Garvey is pretty weak)
<< <i>With this post you have pretty much made it clear that you believe Olerud was a better overall 1st baseman than Garvey. >>
That isn't exactly the case I was trying to make. Basically what I was saying is that Garvey's career isn't all that impressive and he's more like a lesser-fielding John Olerud, a guy nobody thinks belongs in the HOF.
<< <i>So how is it even remotely POSSIBLE that Garvey garnered 42.6% HOF voting in 1995 and lasted all 15 years of eligibility on the ballot, whereas Olerud didn't make it past his first eligible year with an absolutely atrocious 0.7% HOF vote, if Olerud is more deserving of Hall election based on stats alone? How is it possible to have THAT much disparity between the two 1st basemen in regards to HOF voting? >>
Simple. One was a pretty boy who played in the glamour city of LA during the 1970s when baseball was the king who parlayed his good looks into mainstream attention that magnified his visibility far beyond his actual accomplishments. The other was a guy so quiet one HOF'er (Rickey Henderson) forgot they were teammates and who toiled for most of his career in Seattle and Toronto. So that's how you get a big disparity.
And, if we're going to use the voting as support, does Garvey even have a case as a HOF'er if he managed only 43% of the vote when he was eligible the first time?
<< I personally believe that a big reason why Joe Morgan's Career WAR is so high is that teams chose to have their middle infielders in the 1960's and 1970's field first and as a result most couldn't hit a lick (I'm looking at you Ray Oyler and Mark Belanger [who I know played in the opposite league as Joe]). >>
<<That is a big reason -- and it is exactly why Morgan and Grich should be ranked so highly. If the Reds didn't have Morgan at second base, they would have likely been stuck with a .220 hitter with no power. If the Dodgers didn't have Garvey at first base, they could have had Buckner or Joe Ferguson or any number of guys who could reach base and hit home runs almost as well
(the other reason is that a .392 obp from Morgan or .371 from Grich are very good; .329 from Garvey is pretty weak)>>
I have to disagree. Morgan and Grich had the benefit of playing in an era that had middle infielders focusing on defense and not offense. Just because 90% of the league fielded .220 hitters at the middle infield position doesn't warrant Hall of Fame induction based on a player hitter having a very high WAR because they hit a very mediocre .275 with 15 HRs.
There really needs to be an era adjusted WAR to take this into account (much like how there's a ballpark adjusted factor to even the playing field between stadiums) because Morgan and Grich's offensive statistics are not that impressive when compared to a lot of the second baseman in the Hall of Fame.
<< <i>I have to disagree. Morgan and Grich had the benefit of playing in an era that had middle infielders focusing on defense and not offense. >>
For all the benefit Morgan and Grich had from being so superior to their contemporaries, that same benefit was shared by the Reds and the Orioles (and Angels and Astros) when they had them in the middle infield. That benefit was extra wins for their teams. And that is exactly what WAR attempts to measure
<< <i>... And, if we're going to use the voting as support, does Garvey even have a case as a HOF'er if he managed only 43% of the vote when he was eligible the first time? >>
Ron Santo, Johnny Mize, Pee Wee Reese, Red Schoendienst, Bill Mazeroski and Ritchie Ashburn all maxed out in the mid 40s for HOF voting. George Kell and Phil Rizzuto maxed out in the 30s. The immortal Larry Doby maxed out at 3.4% in the regular HOF voting before being voted in by the Veteran's Committee, so there's hope for anyone, maybe even your John Olerud (0.7%). (On another note, Don Mattingly maxed out at 28.2%)
Edit:
BTW, here are the max % (in parens) that each of the players received during their original HOF voting and are on the ballot now:
1. Steve Garvey (42.6%) 2. Tommy John (31.7%) 3. Dave Parker (24.5%) 4. Dave Concepcion (16.9%) 5. Dan Quisenberry (3.8%) 6. Ted Simmons (3.7%)
1) He was a far different player on artificial turf compared to grass. Since the majority of his games were played on teams that had turf, since he played in the NL(where there were more turf fields), and since he played in an era where turf was used most, I agree that an adjustment should be made.
Here are his lifetime totals:
TURF... PA 6,510, OPS 859 Grass...PA 4,819, OPS .766. BA .256, OB% .370, SLG% .396
Looking at those totals, and knowing that almost every year he showed the same split, it is obvious that the turf fields were suited perfectly to his game. Along the lines of what the poster said above, comparing to other eras that didn't have turf fields, Morgan would be a far different player. How do we know? We saw the kind of player he was in 4,819 plate appearances on grass, which is a very strong sample size.
For comparison, a contemporary of his was Rod Carew. He only has 700 career plate appearances on turf. Morgan was fortunate that he got to play so many games on the surface that helped his game to such a great deal.
2) He is given a ballpark adjustment for playing in the Astrodome, and for a few seasons in Cincy where it was considered a pitchers park. However, he should not be getting that adjumstment in his favor, because he actually BENEFITED from playing on those turf fields.
Here are his home/road OPS splits in the astrodome:
He excelled in his home park, most likely because it was a turf field(see above with his turf results), yet he gets a stat boost with the ballpark adjustment. There are some seasons in Cincy where he got a stat boost due to a false homepark adjustment for him. He should not be getting any park adjustment in his favor for his years in the dome, or the years in Cincy where he got one. His home parks helped him.
3)As for playing 2B, maybe some boost is in order, however, how much of that credit goes to him and how much to his manager(or discredit to other managers)? For instance, Rod Carew was more than capable of playing 2B, yet his team moved him to 1B. Does that mean that Joe Morgan was better because Carew's organization made a mistake?
How about if Cincinnati decided to keep Rose at 2B, and Morgan ended up playing RF? Morgan's WAR would change, yet he is the same player. So part of that WAR measurement is indeed a reflection of his ability + the fluidity of his teams' roster and managerial preference.
Specifically, in 1976 and 1977, the first two years Carew got moved to 1B, Carew had OPS+ of 148 and 178. Bob Randall, the guy that played 2B instead of Carew had OPS+ of 88 and 61 those two years.
So Morgan is getting compared to Randall and those putrid numbers, instead of having Carew in there as a comp.
And Carew isn't the only guy capable of moving around...there are others, but based on the fluidity of the roster, or in the case of Carew-the stupidity of the organization, these guys are not in Morgan's comps, so he is getting an unfair position boost.
That is one of the holes in position adjustments used in WAR.
Knowing all these factors, Morgan is probably the most inaccurately judged player when using the advance measurement tools...and I can see why people scratch their head about Morgan. He was excellent, but not to the degree these tools put him at.
PS...Looking at Morgan on an all-time scale, he should be getting a downward adjustment on the same scale as the hitters at Coors field do....and a positional adjustment value that is half of what they are giving him now.
Knowing all this, it does make guys like Garvey shine in brighter light.
As for Grich, he gets big boosts from his defensive measurements, so you can probably just throw those WAR numbers out the window for him.
Interesting that AstroTurf has been said helps both the offense and the defense
If Morgan was able to take advantage of the Astrodome in ways others weren't able to, that should be to his credit, not something that should discredit him. All that matters is how much did each hit, walk and steal help his team. When runs are scarce, each of those things can go further to helping the team win
Carew was an average defense second baseman and slipping as he reached his 30s. Probably would have been more valuable to his team to stay in the middle of the diamond, but wouldn't have helped them as much as Morgan, who was better
Pete Rose was a poor defensive infielder, but very good when he moved to the outfield. He moved back to the infield later in his career so Griffey and Foster could both be in the lineup. No matter what other teammates Joe Morgan had at any time in his career, he would be the second baseman (unless perhaps he had to play short stop). If the Red Sox decided to play David Ortiz at second and Dustin Pedroia at DH, both of them would do far less to help the team. But that isn't how their skills are best used. Joe Morgan's skills made him one of the very best second baseman and one of the very best players in history
Of the 18 second baseman in the Hall-of-Fame, Grich's OPS+ of 125 is higher than all but Hornsby, Morgan, Lajoie, Collins and Robinson. To me, sixth out of 19 is a very favorable comparison (or seventh out of 20 if we count Carew). The main knock against him is his short career. But then Alomar and Sandberg (and Gordon) are the most recent ones to make it and they have the exact same liability. The strongest argument I can see against Grich for the Hall-of-Fame would be Lou Whitaker. . .
Many players have better home splits than their road numbers, I'm sure partly due to having a greater level of comfort at home. Morgan should not have his numbers adjusted because he happened to hit well in pitcher's parks. The fact that he could hit well in environments that the majority of hitters struggled in is a big advantage to his teams and helped them win games. In no way should that be reflected negatively on Joe Morgan. That is basically the definition of greatness, who helps their team win the most.
The same goes for positional adjustments. The fact that Morgan could handle 2B defensively is and should be an advantage to him. If Garvey was capable of playing 2B adequately I doubt he would have been manning 1B, he had a negative 12.3 dWAR for his career, gold gloves or not.
That is another thing, GG awards, All-Star appearances, MVP awards, etc. are extremely subjective and should carry very little weight when comparing players. There are plenty of statistics to use to compare players, do we really need to bring subjective opinions into it too.
Also, just to throw it out there, I can't stand Joe Morgan.
"WITH GORILLA GONE, WILL THERE BE HOPE FOR MAN?" Daniel Quinn, Ishmael
<<<<<Here are a few things that Morgan benefited from.
1) He was a far different player on artificial turf compared to grass. Since the majority of his games were played on teams that had turf, since he played in the NL(where there were more turf fields), and since he played in an era where turf was used most, I agree that an adjustment should be made.
Here are his lifetime totals:
TURF... PA 6,510, OPS 859 Grass...PA 4,819, OPS .766. BA .256, OB% .370, SLG% .396
Looking at those totals, and knowing that almost every year he showed the same split, it is obvious that the turf fields were suited perfectly to his game. Along the lines of what the poster said above, comparing to other eras that didn't have turf fields, Morgan would be a far different player. How do we know? We saw the kind of player he was in 4,819 plate appearances on grass, which is a very strong sample size.
For comparison, a contemporary of his was Rod Carew. He only has 700 career plate appearances on turf. Morgan was fortunate that he got to play so many games on the surface that helped his game to such a great deal.
2) He is given a ballpark adjustment for playing in the Astrodome, and for a few seasons in Cincy where it was considered a pitchers park. However, he should not be getting that adjumstment in his favor, because he actually BENEFITED from playing on those turf fields.
Here are his home/road OPS splits in the astrodome:
He excelled in his home park, most likely because it was a turf field(see above with his turf results), yet he gets a stat boost with the ballpark adjustment. There are some seasons in Cincy where he got a stat boost due to a false homepark adjustment for him. He should not be getting any park adjustment in his favor for his years in the dome, or the years in Cincy where he got one. His home parks helped him.
3)As for playing 2B, maybe some boost is in order, however, how much of that credit goes to him and how much to his manager(or discredit to other managers)? For instance, Rod Carew was more than capable of playing 2B, yet his team moved him to 1B. Does that mean that Joe Morgan was better because Carew's organization made a mistake?
How about if Cincinnati decided to keep Rose at 2B, and Morgan ended up playing RF? Morgan's WAR would change, yet he is the same player. So part of that WAR measurement is indeed a reflection of his ability + the fluidity of his teams' roster and managerial preference.
Specifically, in 1976 and 1977, the first two years Carew got moved to 1B, Carew had OPS+ of 148 and 178. Bob Randall, the guy that played 2B instead of Carew had OPS+ of 88 and 61 those two years.
So Morgan is getting compared to Randall and those putrid numbers, instead of having Carew in there as a comp.
And Carew isn't the only guy capable of moving around...there are others, but based on the fluidity of the roster, or in the case of Carew-the stupidity of the organization, these guys are not in Morgan's comps, so he is getting an unfair position boost.
That is one of the holes in position adjustments used in WAR.
Knowing all these factors, Morgan is probably the most inaccurately judged player when using the advance measurement tools...and I can see why people scratch their head about Morgan. He was excellent, but not to the degree these tools put him at.
PS...Looking at Morgan on an all-time scale, he should be getting a downward adjustment on the same scale as the hitters at Coors field do....and a positional adjustment value that is half of what they are giving him now.
Knowing all this, it does make guys like Garvey shine in brighter light.
As for Grich, he gets big boosts from his defensive measurements, so you can probably just throw those WAR numbers out the window for him. >>>>>
<< <i>Interesting that AstroTurf has been said helps both the offense and the defense
If Morgan was able to take advantage of the Astrodome in ways others weren't able to, that should be to his credit, not something that should discredit him. All that matters is how much did each hit, walk and steal help his team. When runs are scarce, each of those things can go further to helping the team win
Carew was an average defense second baseman and slipping as he reached his 30s. Probably would have been more valuable to his team to stay in the middle of the diamond, but wouldn't have helped them as much as Morgan, who was better
Pete Rose was a poor defensive infielder, but very good when he moved to the outfield. He moved back to the infield later in his career so Griffey and Foster could both be in the lineup. No matter what other teammates Joe Morgan had at any time in his career, he would be the second baseman (unless perhaps he had to play short stop). If the Red Sox decided to play David Ortiz at second and Dustin Pedroia at DH, both of them would do far less to help the team. But that isn't how their skills are best used. Joe Morgan's skills made him one of the very best second baseman and one of the very best players in history
Of the 18 second baseman in the Hall-of-Fame, Grich's OPS+ of 125 is higher than all but Hornsby, Morgan, Lajoie, Collins and Robinson. To me, sixth out of 19 is a very favorable comparison (or seventh out of 20 if we count Carew). The main knock against him is his short career. But then Alomar and Sandberg (and Gordon) are the most recent ones to make it and they have the exact same liability. The strongest argument I can see against Grich for the Hall-of-Fame would be Lou Whitaker. . . >>
If you are saying that Morgan's uptick in performance in the Astrodome gave his team an advantage, then his downtick in performance on the road wiped that advantage out. What you end up with is his seasonal stat line. With that seasonal stat line, the metric is then giving him a higher value because his home park suppressed offense...but it did not suppress his performance, and with the turf, actually helped it. So he should not be getting that ballpark adjustment upwards like he is.
Pete Rose was capable of handling second base, and the point is not who was better at 2B, the point is that there are a more guys capable of playing 2B(Rose and Carew for example) who did not because of the way their roster happened to be, or because of poor managerial choice.
The reason why this matters is because when WAR looks at those putrid Bob Randall numbers and compare Morgan's performance to his like, it is giving a false impression of his value. Baseball is not played position vs position... it is played 9 vs 9. The positions do not go directly against each other. There are more guys like Carew and Rose that were exceptional hitters that were more than capable of handling 2B, that simply weren't playing there for reasons other than ability. Therefore, Morgan is getting an unfair boost in value in measurements like WAR, when it compares him to the players position.
No, Ortiz is not a candidate to play 2B....but Alex Rodriguez certainly was to play SS or 2B(and may have even been better defensively that his team's starting SS adn 2B), but he played 3B due to the nature of the roster and managerial choice.
At the time he started, Cal Ripken wasn't a conventional MLB SS, and he ended up doing just fine there...don't be too quick to dismiss others being capable.
As for the turf, it seems pretty obvious that it was a great benefit to Morgan's game. Circumstances allowed him to take full advantage of that. So in an all-time adjustment...in other era's or circumstances, where he had to play on just grass, hitting .256 and SLG .396 isn't quite as jaw dropping.
PS the WAR defensive measurements have little validity. Who cares what it says about Garvey's 1B defense! It doesn't even measure how well a 1B picks and stretches, which is a huge part of the position. How can you trust a measurement that misses such a big component of that position?? Not to mention all the other problems the WAR defensive measurement has.
The combination of the faulty positional adjustment and the very faulty defensive validity, using the total WAR figure so strongly is going to lead one to many false conclusions.
<< <i> If you are saying that Morgan's uptick in performance in the Astrodome gave his team an advantage, then his downtick in performance on the road wiped that advantage out. What you end up with is his seasonal stat line. With that seasonal stat line, the metric is then giving him a higher value because his home park suppressed offense...but it did not suppress his performance, and with the turf, actually helped it. So he should not be getting that ballpark adjustment upwards like he is. >>
What "metric" are we talking about? Morgan's career ops in the Astrodome was .404. That is a huge advantage for the teams he played on over the course of 596 games. In Fulton County it was .383 over 126 games; in Wrigley it was .370 in 111 games. To say that "wipes away" what actually happened when he was actually in Houston playing baseball makes absolutely no sense at all
In three of the six years Morgan played full time in the Astrodome, the entire team hit better at home than on the road. All that is built into all the stats like park factor, OPS+, WAP, WPA, et cetera
<< <i>The reason why this matters is because when WAR looks at those putrid Bob Randall numbers and compare Morgan's performance to his like, it is giving a false impression of his value. Baseball is not played position vs position... it is played 9 vs 9. The positions do not go directly against each other. There are more guys like Carew and Rose that were exceptional hitters that were more than capable of handling 2B, that simply weren't playing there for reasons other than ability. Therefore, Morgan is getting an unfair boost in value in measurements like WAR, when it compares him to the players position. >>
Morgan was a far better defensive second baseman than either Carew (about average, declining when he moved to first) or Rose (always below average). I agree it is important to often look at things not as they are, but as they could be. Yet even when we do that, we are left wondering exactly how it would have been possible to change all those at bats from Ted Sizemore, Manny Trillio, Felix Millan, Glen Beckert, Ron Hunt and dozens of similar names. If we could somehow have had Steve Garvey replace Davey Lopes or left-handed Willie McCovey to replace Tito Feuntes, we absolutely should look at Joe Morgan's career far differently. The sport itself would be far different. When we look at the sport as it is, we see the Reds having the advantage of a .900 ops from their second baseman, while the rest of the league struggled around around .600
What "metric" are we talking about? Morgan's career ops in the Astrodome was .404. That is a huge advantage for the teams he played on over the course of 596 games. In Fulton County it was .383 over 126 games; in Wrigley it was .370 in 111 games. To say that "wipes away" what actually happened when he was actually in Houston playing baseball makes absolutely no sense at all
In three of the six years Morgan played full time in the Astrodome, the entire team hit better at home than on the road. All that is built into all the stats like park factor, OPS+, WAP, WPA, et cetera >>
Morgan was a far better defensive second baseman than either Carew (about average, declining when he moved to first) or Rose (always below average). I agree it is important to often look at things not as they are, but as they could be. Yet even when we do that, we are left wondering exactly how it would have been possible to change all those at bats from Ted Sizemore, Manny Trillio, Felix Millan, Glen Beckert, Ron Hunt and dozens of similar names. If we could somehow have had Steve Garvey replace Davey Lopes or left-handed Willie McCovey to replace Tito Feuntes, we absolutely should look at Joe Morgan's career far differently. The sport itself would be far different. When we look at the sport as it is, we see the Reds having the advantage of a .900 ops from their second baseman, while the rest of the league struggled around around .600 >>
NV, the ballpark factor Morgan is given, is given because the park supposedly suppressed his offense. However, it didn't. Any of his numbers that are reflected with him with that ballpark factor adjusted upwards for him, isn't accurate.
I used that example of other road parks, because it was said, "since he played so well in the Dome, it gave his team an advantage." That is true...but then it is also true that he played worse on the road as a whole, so that advantage he gained from playing so well at home is negated by playing worse on the road...leaving you with his total final batting line, which is fine.
But then the ballpark factor comes and and gives his numbers a boost because of the ballpark factor of that being a pitchers park. Since he didn't get hurt from the park, and since the turf helped him, that adjustment isn't really necessary.
I'm not sure how you can say Morgan was far better than either Carew or Rose defensively. They are pretty interchangable, and it is usually the luck/circumstances that gives them a big amount of plays over the other. However, that isn't the point.
The Reds do not have a .900 to .600 OPS advantage over the rest of the league...because there were second baseman playing other positions. The game is not played position vs. position. If it were, then you would have a point. Carew and Rose are still playing, and teams have the option to use them there too. Just because they didn't for whatever reason, doesn't make Morgan better.
If Carew and Rose were moved off of second, and then couldn't play or bat as a result, then I would agree. But, they are still playing and competing directly against Morgan(well Rose on the same team in this instance). Since the managers and circumstances moved those guys off 2B, yes, that is helpful to the Reds, but then any measurement that is giving a position adjustment, isn't just judging Morgan, it is also judging the decision making of the managers and organizations...because you still have Carew and Rose who are also Second Baseman that Morgan should be evaluated against.
Morgan is given a position adjustment over the replacement level of a second baseman.
In 1976, the league average OPS for a 2B was .650. Replacement level is figured somewhere about .550 or so(I am estimating that number). So Morgan is given a value of how far he is above that .550 level.
The funny thing about it is, in a real life example the Reds have Pete Rose as a replacement player for Morgan at second base...and Rose isn't figured into that .550 replacement level. So the Reds themselves have a replacement second baseman on their own team with an .854 OPS...a far cry from the .550 that Morgan is getting measured against.
The Reds would lose some offense going from Morgan to Rose, but not nearly to the degree that the WAR figures suggest when they measure him above replacement level.
Now you just have to go back to that circumstance thing I was talking about. It just so happened that a great hitting second baseman was on his own team, and was playing another position. It is circumstance putting Rose on his team, instead of another team in the league where he would be playing 2B and making the second base position a better hitting position.
Same goes for Carew and his team. In his case, their starting second baseman getting injured, would benefit them...if the manager were smart enough to put Carew there.
And again, it is circumstance keeping Carew's hitting from the league second base hitting totals. It isn't Morgan being better...he shouldn't be getting that credit.
Either way, that typical second baseman numbers you are putting out, are leaving out the other second baseman in the league who happen to be playing elsewhere for whatever reason.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>None of these players are worthy of hall of fame admission. You know a hall of fame player when you see one, and these guys belong in the Hall of Very Good. >>
I'd love to see someone attempt to explain why Ted Simmons should not be in the HOF. >>
I could make a better case for than against with just the smallest amount of research. The fact that he was one and done on the ballot is one of those WTF deals. I've thought he was overlooked because he wasn't Bench, Fisk, Carter and didn't play in NY like Munson. Simmons had a great career though.
<< <i>Well, first of all, you're comparing Garvey to: A) a catcher;
C is Tony Perez and is a legit comparison and Perez's resume is better. 100+ more homers. 7 100-RBI seasons vs 5. OPS+ of 122 vs 117. 300 more RBI. 130 more hits. Higher slugging percentage. So Perez, who was a borderline candidate to many guys, is a better candidate than Garvey.
A is Johnny Bench. This one is laughable. First of all, Bench is widely considered one of the two or three best ever at his position. Garvey isn't even remotely close to the discussion of best ever at his position. Secondly, catchers are judged offensively by a slightly different standard and Bench's power trumps Garvey's anyway. And Bench was better defensively than Garvey.
B is Joe Morgan. What you're saying is Garvey essentially has the same offensive numbers as a second baseman. Is that supposed to be a positive? IMHO, it's a big strike against Garvey. First basemen are supposed to provide a lot more offense than second basemen, plain and simple.
Somebody else mentioned Lance Parrish. As a Tigers fan, it kills me that Parrish's back gave out on him in 1986. He was well on his way to the HOF when he got hurt. Heck, he might be the most underrated player in the entire decade of the 80s. He was an outstanding defensive catcher who also put up monster offensive numbers. And then he got hurt and was never the same. And heck, even with that, he'd be a pretty good candidate right now.
So, yeah, still not convinced on Garvey
The point of this was:
(1) If you just look at the pure numbers and not who the players are, no one is tremendously impressive in this list. Bench has a very mediocre batting averge, and he's supposed to be the best catcher ever.
(2) I define HOF credentials (IMHO) as someone who consistently dominates the league. This is shown by MVP voting. Garvey had more mention as a dominant player in the league than most of other HOFers in this list. Certainly more than Tony Perez, who never even won an MVP.
(3) If you argue that Bench and Morgan were in a different category because of their defense, then Garvey is one of the best 1st basemen of all time who combined batting with gold glove defense. If you argue that 1st basement need to provide more power numbers, none of those HOFers did squat on the defensive end other than Eddie Murray. Garvey is in the Eddie Murray class for offense and defense (although admittedly Murray is better because of superior batting).
Lou Gehrig Master Set
Non-Registry Collection
Game Used Cards Collection
However, if you want to look at their Win Probability Added, which is one of the most accurate measurements, and includes the context of each at bat(which renders using traditional RBI's meaningless), here are some figures from some contemporaries.
Name........WPA
TOP TIER HOF
Schmidt......55
Stargell.......53
Brett...........52
Murray........52
Reggie........50
Reggie Smith....49
Tony Perez.....41
Winfield........41
Darrell Evans......40
Jack Clark........38
Keith Hernandez......38
Parker.................36
Dewey Evans.......35
Singleton...........30
Bench.................30
Simmons..........30
Dawson.............29
Garvey................27
Puckett.............27
Lynn.................27
Foster.............26
Rice...............26
Ozzie Smith........1
This is just one advanced measurement, others may have very slight variances(but nothing major). This does not account for defense.
Based on some of the guys that were elected, I can see why cases can be made for ANY of these guys on this list! None of them belong in the top tier HOF group....but when guys like Jim Rice start getting elected, the flood gets have to get opened. After all, these guys were as good as Rice...and guys like Garvey were far more famous than Rice.
Garvey was as good statistically as Rice(when using the most accurate measurements). He was in far more post season glory...AND, if given the 'housewife' test, he was far more famous! The housewife test being, asking all housewives who each was, and Garvey would get the nod.
Sorry for Dawson fans too. No way he is in, while Parker, Keithe Hernandez, D & D Evans, Jack Clark, and Reggie Smith, don't even get a sniff.
But after years of HOF talk, putting Rice in created all this to open it up for all these other guys. It makes no sense to have Garvey OUT, when a lesser skilled and less popular player like Rice gets elected IN.
PS. I put Ozzie on that list even though he was a SS, and all other guys mostly corner men. I don't buy the value given to Smith's defense. I've seen Bill Mazeroski called the best defensive player EVER...yet when I did a study on what he did and compared him to his replacements on his same team, they did EQUAL!! Defensive prowess is often a case of luck and environement + Skill. Separating the skill from the other two is impossible, and to put the same stock into defensive numbers as the more valid offensive numbers, is a mistake. Yet that is how Smith got in.
For all the fans that clamored for Rice....unless you are also clamoring for Garvey, you are a fool twice over.
Steve Garvey and Fred Lynn would be the top two guys that belong in the HOF!
Both were the cats meow in their day, both the type of players kids 'wanted to be' when playing wiffle ball....and they both finish high on the housewife test(with Garvey maybe higher than ANYONE from his era).
They both eclipse or are equal to HOFers from their era in the advanced measurements.
AND
They outshine almost everyone of those guys in the traditional fan method of evaluating players based on being a star and famous.
AND
Garvey has the post season glory that everyone always seems to apply to every other player in sports, but ignore when it comes to him....and somehow give Jim Rice a pass for not even having any(go figure).
Oh, and George Foster would be third. He was everything that fans claimed Jim Rice was, but he has two rings(this is part of the traditional fan equation).
Statistical deserving guys like Smith, Hernandez, Jack Clark certainly were better than Garvey...but looking at the other half of the equation(which is also in the HOF criteria), Garvey pulls ahead of them.
<< <i> None of them belong in the top tier HOF group.... >>
Schmidt most definitely does
<< <i>But after years of HOF talk, putting Rice in created all this to open it up for all these other guys. It makes no sense to have Garvey OUT, when a lesser skilled and less popular player like Rice gets elected IN. >>
The idea that we should not follow up one stupid decision with more stupid decisions makes sense to me
<< <i>PS. I put Ozzie on that list even though he was a SS, and all other guys mostly corner men. I don't buy the value given to Smith's defense. I've seen Bill Mazeroski called the best defensive player EVER...yet when I did a study on what he did and compared him to his replacements on his same team, they did EQUAL!! Defensive prowess is often a case of luck and environement + Skill. Separating the skill from the other two is impossible, and to put the same stock into defensive numbers as the more valid offensive numbers, is a mistake. Yet that is how Smith got in. >>
Did you ever compare Smith's assist totals to the assists of the second and third basemen he played along side? It is the best ratio in history. And those were actually good fielders he played alongside, making it even more impressive.
<< <i>For all the fans that clamored for Rice....unless you are also clamoring for Garvey, you are a fool twice over. >>
For as foolish a choice as Rice was, he was better than Garvey
<< <i>(3) If you argue that Bench and Morgan were in a different category because of their defense, then Garvey is one of the best 1st basemen of all time who combined batting with gold glove defense. If you argue that 1st basement need to provide more power numbers, none of those HOFers did squat on the defensive end other than Eddie Murray. Garvey is in the Eddie Murray class for offense and defense (although admittedly Murray is better because of superior batting). >>
Catcher and 2B are on an entirely different level when it comes to importance - and difficulty - defensively than first base is. There's a reason why the worst defensive, least athletic, guys on a team play 1B. Being a "great defensive 1B" really only means something if you're out-of-this-world great like John Olerud (the king at eliminating throwing errors) or Keith Hernandez. Garvey? However good he may have been, he's not in that class. Given that, Garvey needs to be an elite hitter. Simply put, he wasn't. He had some nice years but nothing GREAT.
Speaking of Olerud...
Career OPS+ of 129 trumps Garvey's 117. His best season (1993) trumps Garvey's as he led the league in doubles, hitting, OBP, OPS, and OPS+ while winning a World Series title. Nearly the same number of HRs and RBI as Garvey. Higher BA, OBP, SLUG% than Garvey. Same number of Gold Gloves while being a much better defensive player. Same number of 20 HR seasons. More 90 RBI seasons.
So...you wanna make the case for Olerud being a HOF'er over Garvey?
<< <i>
(2) I define HOF credentials (IMHO) as someone who consistently dominates the league. This is shown by MVP voting. Garvey had more mention as a dominant player in the league than most of other HOFers in this list. Certainly more than Tony Perez, who never even won an MVP >>
Just because someone voted for him as one of the most valuable players, does not mean he really was. The answer to foolish votes by the writers in the past is not to use such foolishness as justification for it to continue.
Bench and Morgan were both among the very best in history at their position. Garvey is below 30th best ever at first, behind Dick Allen, Keith Hernandez and Jeff Bagwell (and Will Clark and plenty others not in the Hall-of-Fame)
Tony Perez is perhaps the weakest Hall-of-Fame choice ever from the writers (alongside Rice, perhaps better than Sutter, Gossage and Hunter)
<< <i>
<< <i> None of them belong in the top tier HOF group.... >>
Schmidt most definitely does
<< <i>But after years of HOF talk, putting Rice in created all this to open it up for all these other guys. It makes no sense to have Garvey OUT, when a lesser skilled and less popular player like Rice gets elected IN. >>
The idea that we should not follow up one stupid decision with more stupid decisions makes sense to me
<< <i>PS. I put Ozzie on that list even though he was a SS, and all other guys mostly corner men. I don't buy the value given to Smith's defense. I've seen Bill Mazeroski called the best defensive player EVER...yet when I did a study on what he did and compared him to his replacements on his same team, they did EQUAL!! Defensive prowess is often a case of luck and environement + Skill. Separating the skill from the other two is impossible, and to put the same stock into defensive numbers as the more valid offensive numbers, is a mistake. Yet that is how Smith got in. >>
Did you ever compare Smith's assist totals to the assists of the second and third basemen he played along side? It is the best ratio in history. And those were actually good fielders he played alongside, making it even more impressive.
<< <i>For all the fans that clamored for Rice....unless you are also clamoring for Garvey, you are a fool twice over. >>
For as foolish a choice as Rice was, he was better than Garvey >>
I said none of them on the list belong in the top tier group. The top tier group includes Schmidt, Brett, Murray, Stargell, Reggie from the list I put up.
The fact that Ozzie Smith got all those assist despite playing next to top third baseman could just as well mean that more balls were simply hit in his direction. The Cardinals had a very low strikeout pitching staff, and no matter how you account for all possible scenarios, one simply cannot adjust for the fact that some players simply had more balls hit to them(or more routine hit balls) than other equally skilled fielders, thus the higher assist totals .
My personal view is that only those guys in 'My' TOp tier group who had a combination of longevity and league dominance belong.
HOWEVER,
Based on the voting results and the HOF criteria(which includes more than their numbers), Garvey has MORE of a claim than Jim Rice and Dawson. Fred Lynn has more of a claim than Jim Rice, Dawson, Puckett.
My list above ranks them based on Win Probability Added(the most comprehensive offensive measurement). WAR is awful(especially with the Voodoo of the defensive and position adjustments).
<< <i>
<< <i>(3) If you argue that Bench and Morgan were in a different category because of their defense, then Garvey is one of the best 1st basemen of all time who combined batting with gold glove defense. If you argue that 1st basement need to provide more power numbers, none of those HOFers did squat on the defensive end other than Eddie Murray. Garvey is in the Eddie Murray class for offense and defense (although admittedly Murray is better because of superior batting). >>
Catcher and 2B are on an entirely different level when it comes to importance - and difficulty - defensively than first base is. There's a reason why the worst defensive, least athletic, guys on a team play 1B. Being a "great defensive 1B" really only means something if you're out-of-this-world great like John Olerud (the king at eliminating throwing errors) or Keith Hernandez. Garvey? However good he may have been, he's not in that class. Given that, Garvey needs to be an elite hitter. Simply put, he wasn't. He had some nice years but nothing GREAT.
Speaking of Olerud...
Career OPS+ of 129 trumps Garvey's 117. His best season (1993) trumps Garvey's as he led the league in doubles, hitting, OBP, OPS, and OPS+ while winning a World Series title. Nearly the same number of HRs and RBI as Garvey. Higher BA, OBP, SLUG% than Garvey. Same number of Gold Gloves while being a much better defensive player. Same number of 20 HR seasons. More 90 RBI seasons.
So...you wanna make the case for Olerud being a HOF'er over Garvey? >>
Olerud is from a different era...an era were OPS+ was easier to separate from league average. Same with WPA.
Win probablity added is far more accurate than OPS+ Olerud does beat Garvey 33 to 27. However, he did it in the easier era to separate from the league average...so those are almost equal.
You also must not have read what I wrote.
The inclusion is based on the advanced measurement + the traditional fan method of popularity and fame(which are part of the HOF criteria).
Olerud and Garvey are nearly equal in the advanced measurement.
Garvey is literally in a different universe on the other half of the equation.
THat equals to a simple win based on the HOF criteria...for Garvey.
<< <i>
<< <i>(3) If you argue that Bench and Morgan were in a different category because of their defense, then Garvey is one of the best 1st basemen of all time who combined batting with gold glove defense. If you argue that 1st basement need to provide more power numbers, none of those HOFers did squat on the defensive end other than Eddie Murray. Garvey is in the Eddie Murray class for offense and defense (although admittedly Murray is better because of superior batting). >>
Catcher and 2B are on an entirely different level when it comes to importance - and difficulty - defensively than first base is. There's a reason why the worst defensive, least athletic, guys on a team play 1B. Being a "great defensive 1B" really only means something if you're out-of-this-world great like John Olerud (the king at eliminating throwing errors) or Keith Hernandez. Garvey? However good he may have been, he's not in that class. Given that, Garvey needs to be an elite hitter. Simply put, he wasn't. He had some nice years but nothing GREAT.
Speaking of Olerud...
Career OPS+ of 129 trumps Garvey's 117. His best season (1993) trumps Garvey's as he led the league in doubles, hitting, OBP, OPS, and OPS+ while winning a World Series title. Nearly the same number of HRs and RBI as Garvey. Higher BA, OBP, SLUG% than Garvey. Same number of Gold Gloves while being a much better defensive player. Same number of 20 HR seasons. More 90 RBI seasons.
So...you wanna make the case for Olerud being a HOF'er over Garvey? >>
With this post you have pretty much made it clear that you believe Olerud was a better overall 1st baseman than Garvey. So how is it even remotely POSSIBLE that Garvey garnered 42.6% HOF voting in 1995 and lasted all 15 years of eligibility on the ballot, whereas Olerud didn't make it past his first eligible year with an absolutely atrocious 0.7% HOF vote, if Olerud is more deserving of Hall election based on stats alone? How is it possible to have THAT much disparity between the two 1st basemen in regards to HOF voting?
<< <i>Have read this whole thread and figured I'd make a comment regarding the WPA stat. I've posted before that I'm not a huge fan of these type's of stats but I won't argue they can be useful when analyzing value but any stat that doesn't think Johnny Bench is a top tier HOF'er is a little flawed IMO. A page back it's suggested that players like Dwight Evans, Winfield and Ted Simmons had a greater or equal value than Bench. I'm not sure how anyone can argue that with a straight face. >>
Even as much as I like Dwight Evans(see avatar lol), I'm not going that far
<< <i>Have read this whole thread and figured I'd make a comment regarding the WPA stat. I've posted before that I'm not a huge fan of these type's of stats but I won't argue they can be useful when analyzing value but any stat that doesn't think Johnny Bench is a top tier HOF'er is a little flawed IMO. A page back it's suggested that players like Dwight Evans, Winfield and Ted Simmons had a greater or equal value than Bench. I'm not sure how anyone can argue that with a straight face. >>
Mick, that is offensive only.
Much of Bench's value comes from the top tier catching ability...and he had a great prime. However, you may also be fooled by his RBI totals. If you like RBI, then you must LOVE WPA, because it puts into context how well a hitter does in every situation with runners on base(so it is RBI on steroids).
Mick, it includes all hitting events with men on base, etc... so the guys who had more hits with men on base, etc...get a higher value.
Also, you have to look at prime and career. Bench's prime in that figure is high. His career was short, so his career total isn't as high.
Also, compare Simmons and Bench and their career traditional totals.
Bench ......267 AVG.....342 OB%......476 SLG%
Simmons..285 AVG......348 OB%......437 SLG%
Evans.....272 AVG.......370 OB%.......470 SLG %
Simmons did that with over 1,000 more career plate appearnces(more old man at bats)...and he was a beast with his men on base hitting.
So it wouldn't be surprising that they are close in the WPA stat. When you figure that Simmons has some all-time type increase with his men on base hitting, it is fairly easy to see why those WPA figures are the same.
The play by play data doesn't lie. It may shake some previously erroneous held beliefs...but the millions of play by play data is what it is, which is exactly what happened.
I added Evans in there. One would have to be blind to not see that Evans was actually superior to Bench offensively. Add in that he played longer into his old man years(with over 2,000 more career plate appearances), it is a slam dunk.
To the Evans poster above...you should be going that far! Evans is probably one of the MOST desrrving HOF players(based on MERIT), that is not in the Hall. I'd be po'ed if I were you
PS. In essence, Bench is in there over Simmons for the same reason why Garvey should be in over Rice/Dawson...the fame and popularity part that are part of the Hall's criteria. Bench has it. Garvey has it. Evans unfortunately does not. The stats posted above don't lie...that is what happened. The other stuff is up for debate.
Mick, this is what I edited to add above. And what you just wrote above would exemplify why Garvey and Lynn would be slam dunk HOFer's over guys like Rice/Dawson.
Garvey and Lynn epitomize the non statistical HOF criteria. They are close enough or better statistically, that they make the writers look foolish for not electing them, and instead electing Dawson/Rice.
The stats however, tell far more than half the story. Sometimes, objectiveness hurts the subjective view and isn't easy to accept, but baseball hitting stats are SOOOO precise, that htey trump any opinion.
Also, Bench's arm was unequaled...and the WPA above does NOT factor that...so your eyes aren't lying there!
Also, in the era of the rabbit baserunning...benches ability to shut the running game down was indeed a positive factor. But his offensive stats aren't misleading at all. They are what they are.
<< <i>
<< <i>Have read this whole thread and figured I'd make a comment regarding the WPA stat. I've posted before that I'm not a huge fan of these type's of stats but I won't argue they can be useful when analyzing value but any stat that doesn't think Johnny Bench is a top tier HOF'er is a little flawed IMO. A page back it's suggested that players like Dwight Evans, Winfield and Ted Simmons had a greater or equal value than Bench. I'm not sure how anyone can argue that with a straight face. >>
Mick, that is offensive only.
Much of Bench's value comes from the top tier catching ability...and he had a great prime. However, you may also be fooled by his RBI totals. If you like RBI, then you must LOVE WPA, because it puts into context how well a hitter does in every situation with runners on base(so it is RBI on steroids).
Mick, it includes all hitting events with men on base, etc... so the guys who had more hits with men on base, etc...get a higher value.
Also, you have to look at prime and career. Bench's prime in that figure is high. His career was short, so his career total isn't as high.
Also, compare Simmons and Bench and their career traditional totals.
Bench ......267 AVG.....342 OB%......476 SLG%
Simmons..285 AVG......348 OB%......437 SLG%
Evans.....272 AVG.......370 OB%.......470 SLG %
Simmons did that with over 1,000 more career plate appearnces(more old man at bats)...and he was a beast with his men on base hitting.
So it wouldn't be surprising that they are close in the WPA stat. When you figure that Simmons has some all-time type increase with his men on base hitting, it is fairly easy to see why those WPA figures are the same.
The play by play data doesn't lie. It may shake some previously erroneous held beliefs...but the millions of play by play data is what it is, which is exactly what happened.
I added Evans in there. One would have to be blind to not see that Evans was actually superior to Bench offensively. Add in that he played longer into his old man years(with over 2,000 more career plate appearances), it is a slam dunk.
To the Evans poster above...you should be going that far! Evans is probably one of the MOST desrrving HOF players(based on MERIT), that is not in the Hall. I'd be po'ed if I were you
PS. In essence, Bench is in there over Simmons for the same reason why Garvey should be in over Rice/Dawson...the fame and popularity part that are part of the Hall's criteria. Bench has it. Garvey has it. Evans unfortunately does not. The stats posted above don't lie...that is what happened. The other stuff is up for debate. >>
I was very surprised Evans was left off the VC ballot. I do believe Dwight is overlooked/under valued, whatever someone wants to call it. But, at the end of the day nothing I can do about it.
<< <i>If your only comparing Evans to Bench using offensive stats how is that a slam dunk skins? Evans was a right fielder of course he lasted longer than Bench but In his prime Bench's value far out weighs Evans value. Here's a question I'd like you to think about and answer. Pick either Evans or Bench to build a team around based on there prime years who do you choose and why? >>
I'm saying it is a slam dunk offenisvely for career totals.
Prime/Career is certainly another aspect. Like I said above, if you use those WPA figures and just measure their primes, then some of those sports will switch around.
Mick, I would pick Bench because his defensive reputation is merited(his arm was not a lie, and it was his, not a result of other players on the team), and he had a strong consistent prime. Plus I think he could have played longer. He retired and he was still a league average hitter.
Also, I do look at guys who may have been robbed a little because they were injured/banged up. That is why I would give Lynn an even higher ranking, because his talent was higher than his 'value'...and since his value was there with his fame, that makes him higher than dawson/rice types.
<< <i>WAR needs to be made into a WAR per-162 games played stat. WAR on it's own never takes into account longevity, but WAR per-162 games played makes much more sense and would give us a greater understanding of how good a player was. >>
The major problem with WAR is that it gives the defensive measurement equal validity to the offensive measurement.
The defensive measurements are partly based on voodoo.
The next problem is the positional adjustment they give to the offensive side. For one, nailing down a precise position adjustment isn't nearly as valid as the best offensive measurements.
If you took WAR offensive(WITHOUT the postiion adjustment), then that would be ok.
If you then give the defensive portion less weight(since it is not nearly as valid as the offensive portion without the position adjustment), then your onto something.
As for using per 162 games, that has problems with value measurement...because a guy that can play 162 games with a .950 OPS is of more value than a guy who only plays 130 games with a .950 OPS.
Or more per your example, a guy that plays 162 games with a .950 OPS is of more value than a guy who plays 130 games with a .965 OPS...yet your per/162 would give the guy with less games more value
<< <i>
<< <i>WAR needs to be made into a WAR per-162 games played stat. WAR on it's own never takes into account longevity, but WAR per-162 games played makes much more sense and would give us a greater understanding of how good a player was. >>
The major problem with WAR is that it gives the defensive measurement equal validity to the offensive measurement.
The defensive measurements are partly based on voodoo.
The next problem is the positional adjustment they give to the offensive side. For one, nailing down a precise position adjustment isn't nearly as valid as the best offensive measurements.
If you took WAR offensive(WITHOUT the postiion adjustment), then that would be ok.
If you then give the defensive portion less weight(since it is not nearly as valid as the offensive portion without the position adjustment), then your onto something.
As for using per 162 games, that has problems with value measurement...because a guy that can play 162 games with a .950 OPS is of more value than a guy who only plays 130 games with a .950 OPS.
Or more per your example, a guy that plays 162 games with a .950 OPS is of more value than a guy who plays 130 games with a .965 OPS...yet your per/162 would give the guy with less games more value >>
WAR already takes into account the amount of games played, as WAR is accumulated. So a per-162 games played WAR would still take into account games played and would negatively affect a player's WAR per-162 games played who played less games.
<< <i>I'm a small Hall guy I don't think that's to popular these days. I also think the hall has way to many marginal players in it. Dawson, Rice etc. My way of thinking is to judge players based on there era compared to there peers and this why I'd argue against Evans, Simmons and others like them. They were just overshadowed by others. Skins I can tell your a stat guy and that's great because guys like you and I can debate about baseball all day and like I've posted before there are few things more enjoyable than that. >>
Mick,
I am with you.
I posted that top tier...Schmidt, Brett, Murray, Stargell, Reggie. Those guys all had long careers AND were top five dominant in their primes for several years! To me, that is HOF.
Guys that fell short in longevity(unless they were top two dominant for several seasons), shouldn't be in.
Bench was on that list, but he was a premier catcher...so he would be top tier too, even though he fell a little short career length.
Reason I am arguing for Lynn/Garvey, is because I do that to show the foolishness of the elections of Rice/Dawson.
Lynn/Garvey were nearly equal statistically to those guys, and they were MORE popular and known, with greater intangibles(such as post season stuff, eye test stuff).
But really, I agree for small Hall too.
Putting in Sutter was awful. Quisenberry has equal claim.
It just gets ridiculous when you keep lowering the bar, because then you get more and more equals.
<< <i>None of these players are worthy of hall of fame admission. You know a hall of fame player when you see one, and these guys belong in the Hall of Very Good. >>
Just very good? 3 of the best managers in the history of the game? Perhaps you were talking just about the players (then I agree with you).
Always buying Bobby Cox inserts. PM me.
<< <i>
WAR already takes into account the amount of games played, as WAR is accumulated. So a per-162 games played WAR would still take into account games played and would negatively affect a player's WAR per-162 games played who played less games. >>
SPortscardtheory, my mistake!
I read it wrong the first time! I was thinking per GAME when I first read your post. Sorry, brain fart.
You are right, per 162 games does what you are saying.
However, that is dangerous if you are judging a career!
A guy who plays till age 42 will be negatively impacted compared to a guy who was not good enough to play till age 35.
The guy who plays till 42 should have credit for those extra seven seasons. Per 162 games will actually give him NEGATIVE points for being good enough to play longer!
But forget WAR. The defensive portion blows! Maybe use the defensive portion and put its value in half, then maybe it will be better.
I don't think rice or Dawson belong and because of that I don't think Evans or Lynn do either. Lynn is interesting because he just ran into to many walls!! He was on a path to the hall before he crippled hisself I'd agree on that. When it comes to Bench's bottom line stats offensively I'd just argue that when he was at his best which is how catchers are usually judged in my opinion because of the nature of the position. He was exceptional offensively, MVP caliper. Hitting 40 home runs in an era where 40 was huge. Also if you use the angle where you judge players against previously elected HOF's Bench fits nicely along side the Berra's and Cochrane's but I'm not as sure about Evans spot next to Aaron, Ruth and Robinson. Although I've already said I prefer to look at players value against there peers its just a thought.
I have more to highlight the longevity issue...but that may require a whole new thread. Go back and check the Rice/Murray debates...that highlights that aspect well!
<< <i>Skins,
I don't think rice or Dawson belong and because of that I don't think Evans or Lynn do either. Lynn is interesting because he just ran into to many walls!! He was on a path to the hall before he crippled hisself I'd agree on that. When it comes to Bench's bottom line stats offensively I'd just argue that when he was at his best which is how catchers are usually judged in my opinion because of the nature of the position. He was exceptional offensively, MVP caliper. Hitting 40 home runs in an era where 40 was huge. Also if you use the angle where you judge players against previously elected HOF's Bench fits nicely along side the Berra's and Cochrane's but I'm not as sure about Evans spot next to Aaron, Ruth and Robinson. Although I've already said I prefer to look at players value against there peers its just a thought. >>
Mick, I am pretty lock step with you on all that.
I agree that Lynn is interesting. I kinda feel a little cheated with him. He had more that we didn't see.
He also exemplifies the problems with defensive measurements. Most measurements put him at league average rating. Those are all primarily based on total of Putouts for outfielders. As I pointed out in the Mazeroski article(and I have another post I am working on to show another angle of that too!), defensive results are often simply a matter of pitching staff, environment, and luck of the balls that come your way! Lynn was a beast out there. The running into walls highlights it perfectly!
As for judging the previous eras, that works ok from after WWII up till about 1992. However, the era of 1993 onward drastically changed. The era before WWII was(especially 1900-1930) was also a different animal. It would be hard to do that. Like you said though, it is just another way of looking at it....so why not!
<< <i>
<< <i>(3) If you argue that Bench and Morgan were in a different category because of their defense, then Garvey is one of the best 1st basemen of all time who combined batting with gold glove defense. If you argue that 1st basement need to provide more power numbers, none of those HOFers did squat on the defensive end other than Eddie Murray. Garvey is in the Eddie Murray class for offense and defense (although admittedly Murray is better because of superior batting). >>
Catcher and 2B are on an entirely different level when it comes to importance - and difficulty - defensively than first base is. There's a reason why the worst defensive, least athletic, guys on a team play 1B. Being a "great defensive 1B" really only means something if you're out-of-this-world great like John Olerud (the king at eliminating throwing errors) or Keith Hernandez. Garvey? However good he may have been, he's not in that class. Given that, Garvey needs to be an elite hitter. Simply put, he wasn't. He had some nice years but nothing GREAT.
Speaking of Olerud...
Career OPS+ of 129 trumps Garvey's 117. His best season (1993) trumps Garvey's as he led the league in doubles, hitting, OBP, OPS, and OPS+ while winning a World Series title. Nearly the same number of HRs and RBI as Garvey. Higher BA, OBP, SLUG% than Garvey. Same number of Gold Gloves while being a much better defensive player. Same number of 20 HR seasons. More 90 RBI seasons.
So...you wanna make the case for Olerud being a HOF'er over Garvey? >>
Olerud never won an MVP. He only finished in the top 10 for MVP voting one time. So during his playing days, no one ever considered Olerud as a dominating player in the league. Garvey won the MVP once, was runner up once, and was 6th three more times. He was consistently up there as one of the best players and an elite hitter during his era. Again, to repeat the point, Garvey was an All Star ten times. Olerud only twice. During the times that each of these players played, Garvey was considered elite, and Olerud was not. And speaking of eras, Olerud played during the heart of the steroid era. I'm not saying he was a user, but you never know. Everyone's numbers were bloated during that era. If Olerud played during the 70s, and he had his same numbers, sure, I might put an argument for him. However, he played in the roid era, so fairly or unfairly, his numbers will be compared w/ his doped up peers. And speaking of fielding, Olerud only won 3 Gold Gloves, which is fewer than Garvey's four.
Edit: I just wanted to add one more thing. There's no question that Garvey is a borderline candidate. He completely does not deserve to be a first ballot candidate, and probably deserves to be where he is now, in the hands of the Veterans Committee. However, saying that, the Veterans Committee basically puts in borderline candidates (for players), and I believe that Garvey has done enough to get in (to the Hall of Just Barely Good Enough).
Lou Gehrig Master Set
Non-Registry Collection
Game Used Cards Collection
<< <i>Olerud is from a different era...an era were OPS+ was easier to separate from league average. Same with WPA >>
From 1970 to 1990 Steve Garvey ranked 34 in WPA and 71 in OPS+ (minimum 5000 plate appearances)
From 1990 to 2010 Olerud ranks 25 and 37
It may have been easier to separate from league average, but Olerud separated himself further even from those who were above average
<< <i>
<< <i>Olerud is from a different era...an era were OPS+ was easier to separate from league average. Same with WPA >>
From 1970 to 1990 Steve Garvey ranked 34 in WPA and 71 in OPS+ (minimum 5000 plate appearances)
From 1990 to 2010 Olerud ranks 25 and 37
It may have been easier to separate from league average, but Olerud separated himself further even from those who were above average >>
So giving Olerud the slight edge in the WPA, and then considering the other half of the equation....it makes Garvey the more logical choice.
So again, having Dawson/Rice in the HOF and not Garvey, is foolish.
Like I said above, my personal view is only the guys who had the combination of long careers and were the elite top five performers in their peak belong. Those guys are rare. Once you start adding the Rice/Dawson's of the world, then you open a whole new batch of players that have equal or better cases, like Garvey.
PS. I'm not sure how you determed those rankings and who you included, but here is each of their best league finishes in WPA.
Garvey: 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 10.
Olerud:2nd, 4th, 10th.
So Garvey had the more dominant peak among his peers in that measure.
That said, one argument I'd like to throw out there is the over-reliance in WAR in defining a player's greatness when the stat does have flaws. The player that I constantly believe is overrated because of WAR is Joe Morgan. While I wouldn't argue that he doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame, I don't believe that he's the best of the best players of his era.
I personally believe that a big reason why Joe Morgan's Career WAR is so high is that teams chose to have their middle infielders in the 1960's and 1970's field first and as a result most couldn't hit a lick (I'm looking at you Ray Oyler and Mark Belanger [who I know played in the opposite league as Joe]). As a result, all it took for a second baseman or shortstop to have a decent WAR was to have mediocre batting average and average power. A case in point for this argument is that Bobby Grich who isn't even on the expansion era ballot has a career WAR of 71.0 and no one is crying for his candidacy even though 71.0 is better than the career numbers for Al Simmons, Ed Delahanty, Tony Gwynn, Frankie Frisch, Johnny Mize, Ernie Banks, Goose Goslin, Dave Winfield and plenty of others.
I'm hoping that WAR is adjusted someday to take into account what all your contemporaries throughout baseball did (at least to some degree) and not just the other players to play the position you played.
<< <i>ok I still think he should be a HOFer but then again I think Mattingly is a HOFer. >>
Yes to Mattingly
Torre was an MVP as player, a 4 time champ as a manager and now a senior official in baseball. That is what you call having an impact on the game.
Billy Martin also had a stories career as a player and manager and deserves the same nod.
Yes to Gil Hodges
Yes to Garvey - mainly so his rookie card goes up in value.
What is going on with the Hall of Fame? I saw they are having a vote for players whose contributions came after 1973. The nominees are Dave Concepcion, Steve Garvey, Tommy John, Dave Parker, Dan Quisenberry and Ted Simmons. Is this going to turn into the Frankie Frisch era all over again? I don't see any of those guys as clear cut Hall of Famers, much less worthy of a special ballot. My standard has always been "was the game made better because this player played it?" That might put Quisenberry in (with whom I share your affinity) and John simply for the surgery if you wanted to stretch it. Parker was almost great and as a catcher Simmons was a great DH. Have I lost my mind, or is this just going to dilute the Hall to a level far beyond its already sad state?
Asked by: mikewright
Answered: 11/7/2013
All of those players are far better qualified for the Hall of Fame than, let us say, Chick Hafey, Travis Jackson, Jesse Haines or Ross Youngs. The standards for the Hall of Fame have not been going down; they have been going up, and they have been going up at an unrealistic pace, so that the players of the last 40 years are being held to a dramatically higher standard than those of previous generations. I don't think it is a bad idea to try to address that.
<< <i>I personally believe that a big reason why Joe Morgan's Career WAR is so high is that teams chose to have their middle infielders in the 1960's and 1970's field first and as a result most couldn't hit a lick (I'm looking at you Ray Oyler and Mark Belanger [who I know played in the opposite league as Joe]). >>
That is a big reason -- and it is exactly why Morgan and Grich should be ranked so highly. If the Reds didn't have Morgan at second base, they would have likely been stuck with a .220 hitter with no power. If the Dodgers didn't have Garvey at first base, they could have had Buckner or Joe Ferguson or any number of guys who could reach base and hit home runs almost as well
(the other reason is that a .392 obp from Morgan or .371 from Grich are very good; .329 from Garvey is pretty weak)
<< <i>With this post you have pretty much made it clear that you believe Olerud was a better overall 1st baseman than Garvey. >>
That isn't exactly the case I was trying to make. Basically what I was saying is that Garvey's career isn't all that impressive and he's more like a lesser-fielding John Olerud, a guy nobody thinks belongs in the HOF.
<< <i>So how is it even remotely POSSIBLE that Garvey garnered 42.6% HOF voting in 1995 and lasted all 15 years of eligibility on the ballot, whereas Olerud didn't make it past his first eligible year with an absolutely atrocious 0.7% HOF vote, if Olerud is more deserving of Hall election based on stats alone? How is it possible to have THAT much disparity between the two 1st basemen in regards to HOF voting? >>
Simple. One was a pretty boy who played in the glamour city of LA during the 1970s when baseball was the king who parlayed his good looks into mainstream attention that magnified his visibility far beyond his actual accomplishments. The other was a guy so quiet one HOF'er (Rickey Henderson) forgot they were teammates and who toiled for most of his career in Seattle and Toronto. So that's how you get a big disparity.
And, if we're going to use the voting as support, does Garvey even have a case as a HOF'er if he managed only 43% of the vote when he was eligible the first time?
<<That is a big reason -- and it is exactly why Morgan and Grich should be ranked so highly. If the Reds didn't have Morgan at second base, they would have likely been stuck with a .220 hitter with no power. If the Dodgers didn't have Garvey at first base, they could have had Buckner or Joe Ferguson or any number of guys who could reach base and hit home runs almost as well
(the other reason is that a .392 obp from Morgan or .371 from Grich are very good; .329 from Garvey is pretty weak)>>
I have to disagree. Morgan and Grich had the benefit of playing in an era that had middle infielders focusing on defense and not offense. Just because 90% of the league fielded .220 hitters at the middle infield position doesn't warrant Hall of Fame induction based on a player hitter having a very high WAR because they hit a very mediocre .275 with 15 HRs.
There really needs to be an era adjusted WAR to take this into account (much like how there's a ballpark adjusted factor to even the playing field between stadiums) because Morgan and Grich's offensive statistics are not that impressive when compared to a lot of the second baseman in the Hall of Fame.
<< <i>I have to disagree. Morgan and Grich had the benefit of playing in an era that had middle infielders focusing on defense and not offense. >>
For all the benefit Morgan and Grich had from being so superior to their contemporaries, that same benefit was shared by the Reds and the Orioles (and Angels and Astros) when they had them in the middle infield. That benefit was extra wins for their teams. And that is exactly what WAR attempts to measure
<< <i>...
And, if we're going to use the voting as support, does Garvey even have a case as a HOF'er if he managed only 43% of the vote when he was eligible the first time? >>
Ron Santo, Johnny Mize, Pee Wee Reese, Red Schoendienst, Bill Mazeroski and Ritchie Ashburn all maxed out in the mid 40s for HOF voting. George Kell and Phil Rizzuto maxed out in the 30s. The immortal Larry Doby maxed out at 3.4% in the regular HOF voting before being voted in by the Veteran's Committee, so there's hope for anyone, maybe even your John Olerud (0.7%). (On another note, Don Mattingly maxed out at 28.2%)
Edit:
BTW, here are the max % (in parens) that each of the players received during their original HOF voting and are on the ballot now:
1. Steve Garvey (42.6%)
2. Tommy John (31.7%)
3. Dave Parker (24.5%)
4. Dave Concepcion (16.9%)
5. Dan Quisenberry (3.8%)
6. Ted Simmons (3.7%)
Lou Gehrig Master Set
Non-Registry Collection
Game Used Cards Collection
1) He was a far different player on artificial turf compared to grass. Since the majority of his games were played on teams that had turf, since he played in the NL(where there were more turf fields), and since he played in an era where turf was used most, I agree that an adjustment should be made.
Here are his lifetime totals:
TURF... PA 6,510, OPS 859
Grass...PA 4,819, OPS .766. BA .256, OB% .370, SLG% .396
Looking at those totals, and knowing that almost every year he showed the same split, it is obvious that the turf fields were suited perfectly to his game. Along the lines of what the poster said above, comparing to other eras that didn't have turf fields, Morgan would be a far different player. How do we know? We saw the kind of player he was in 4,819 plate appearances on grass, which is a very strong sample size.
For comparison, a contemporary of his was Rod Carew. He only has 700 career plate appearances on turf. Morgan was fortunate that he got to play so many games on the surface that helped his game to such a great deal.
2) He is given a ballpark adjustment for playing in the Astrodome, and for a few seasons in Cincy where it was considered a pitchers park. However, he should not be getting that adjumstment in his favor, because he actually BENEFITED from playing on those turf fields.
Here are his home/road OPS splits in the astrodome:
YR.....Home...Road
65.....835.......748
66.....836.......792
67.....868.......708
69.....796.......681
70.....818.......742
71.....688......817
He excelled in his home park, most likely because it was a turf field(see above with his turf results), yet he gets a stat boost with the ballpark adjustment. There are some seasons in Cincy where he got a stat boost due to a false homepark adjustment for him. He should not be getting any park adjustment in his favor for his years in the dome, or the years in Cincy where he got one. His home parks helped him.
3)As for playing 2B, maybe some boost is in order, however, how much of that credit goes to him and how much to his manager(or discredit to other managers)? For instance, Rod Carew was more than capable of playing 2B, yet his team moved him to 1B. Does that mean that Joe Morgan was better because Carew's organization made a mistake?
How about if Cincinnati decided to keep Rose at 2B, and Morgan ended up playing RF? Morgan's WAR would change, yet he is the same player. So part of that WAR measurement is indeed a reflection of his ability + the fluidity of his teams' roster and managerial preference.
Specifically, in 1976 and 1977, the first two years Carew got moved to 1B, Carew had OPS+ of 148 and 178. Bob Randall, the guy that played 2B instead of Carew had OPS+ of 88 and 61 those two years.
So Morgan is getting compared to Randall and those putrid numbers, instead of having Carew in there as a comp.
And Carew isn't the only guy capable of moving around...there are others, but based on the fluidity of the roster, or in the case of Carew-the stupidity of the organization, these guys are not in Morgan's comps, so he is getting an unfair position boost.
That is one of the holes in position adjustments used in WAR.
Knowing all these factors, Morgan is probably the most inaccurately judged player when using the advance measurement tools...and I can see why people scratch their head about Morgan. He was excellent, but not to the degree these tools put him at.
PS...Looking at Morgan on an all-time scale, he should be getting a downward adjustment on the same scale as the hitters at Coors field do....and a positional adjustment value that is half of what they are giving him now.
Knowing all this, it does make guys like Garvey shine in brighter light.
As for Grich, he gets big boosts from his defensive measurements, so you can probably just throw those WAR numbers out the window for him.
If Morgan was able to take advantage of the Astrodome in ways others weren't able to, that should be to his credit, not something that should discredit him. All that matters is how much did each hit, walk and steal help his team. When runs are scarce, each of those things can go further to helping the team win
Carew was an average defense second baseman and slipping as he reached his 30s. Probably would have been more valuable to his team to stay in the middle of the diamond, but wouldn't have helped them as much as Morgan, who was better
Pete Rose was a poor defensive infielder, but very good when he moved to the outfield. He moved back to the infield later in his career so Griffey and Foster could both be in the lineup. No matter what other teammates Joe Morgan had at any time in his career, he would be the second baseman (unless perhaps he had to play short stop). If the Red Sox decided to play David Ortiz at second and Dustin Pedroia at DH, both of them would do far less to help the team. But that isn't how their skills are best used. Joe Morgan's skills made him one of the very best second baseman and one of the very best players in history
Of the 18 second baseman in the Hall-of-Fame, Grich's OPS+ of 125 is higher than all but Hornsby, Morgan, Lajoie, Collins and Robinson. To me, sixth out of 19 is a very favorable comparison (or seventh out of 20 if we count Carew). The main knock against him is his short career. But then Alomar and Sandberg (and Gordon) are the most recent ones to make it and they have the exact same liability. The strongest argument I can see against Grich for the Hall-of-Fame would be Lou Whitaker. . .
Many players have better home splits than their road numbers, I'm sure partly due to having a greater level of comfort at home. Morgan should not have his numbers adjusted because he happened to hit well in pitcher's parks. The fact that he could hit well in environments that the majority of hitters struggled in is a big advantage to his teams and helped them win games. In no way should that be reflected negatively on Joe Morgan. That is basically the definition of greatness, who helps their team win the most.
The same goes for positional adjustments. The fact that Morgan could handle 2B defensively is and should be an advantage to him. If Garvey was capable of playing 2B adequately I doubt he would have been manning 1B, he had a negative 12.3 dWAR for his career, gold gloves or not.
That is another thing, GG awards, All-Star appearances, MVP awards, etc. are extremely subjective and should carry very little weight when comparing players. There are plenty of statistics to use to compare players, do we really need to bring subjective opinions into it too.
Also, just to throw it out there, I can't stand Joe Morgan.
1) He was a far different player on artificial turf compared to grass. Since the majority of his games were played on teams that had turf, since he played in the NL(where there were more turf fields), and since he played in an era where turf was used most, I agree that an adjustment should be made.
Here are his lifetime totals:
TURF... PA 6,510, OPS 859
Grass...PA 4,819, OPS .766. BA .256, OB% .370, SLG% .396
Looking at those totals, and knowing that almost every year he showed the same split, it is obvious that the turf fields were suited perfectly to his game. Along the lines of what the poster said above, comparing to other eras that didn't have turf fields, Morgan would be a far different player. How do we know? We saw the kind of player he was in 4,819 plate appearances on grass, which is a very strong sample size.
For comparison, a contemporary of his was Rod Carew. He only has 700 career plate appearances on turf. Morgan was fortunate that he got to play so many games on the surface that helped his game to such a great deal.
2) He is given a ballpark adjustment for playing in the Astrodome, and for a few seasons in Cincy where it was considered a pitchers park. However, he should not be getting that adjumstment in his favor, because he actually BENEFITED from playing on those turf fields.
Here are his home/road OPS splits in the astrodome:
YR.....Home...Road
65.....835.......748
66.....836.......792
67.....868.......708
69.....796.......681
70.....818.......742
71.....688......817
He excelled in his home park, most likely because it was a turf field(see above with his turf results), yet he gets a stat boost with the ballpark adjustment. There are some seasons in Cincy where he got a stat boost due to a false homepark adjustment for him. He should not be getting any park adjustment in his favor for his years in the dome, or the years in Cincy where he got one. His home parks helped him.
3)As for playing 2B, maybe some boost is in order, however, how much of that credit goes to him and how much to his manager(or discredit to other managers)? For instance, Rod Carew was more than capable of playing 2B, yet his team moved him to 1B. Does that mean that Joe Morgan was better because Carew's organization made a mistake?
How about if Cincinnati decided to keep Rose at 2B, and Morgan ended up playing RF? Morgan's WAR would change, yet he is the same player. So part of that WAR measurement is indeed a reflection of his ability + the fluidity of his teams' roster and managerial preference.
Specifically, in 1976 and 1977, the first two years Carew got moved to 1B, Carew had OPS+ of 148 and 178. Bob Randall, the guy that played 2B instead of Carew had OPS+ of 88 and 61 those two years.
So Morgan is getting compared to Randall and those putrid numbers, instead of having Carew in there as a comp.
And Carew isn't the only guy capable of moving around...there are others, but based on the fluidity of the roster, or in the case of Carew-the stupidity of the organization, these guys are not in Morgan's comps, so he is getting an unfair position boost.
That is one of the holes in position adjustments used in WAR.
Knowing all these factors, Morgan is probably the most inaccurately judged player when using the advance measurement tools...and I can see why people scratch their head about Morgan. He was excellent, but not to the degree these tools put him at.
PS...Looking at Morgan on an all-time scale, he should be getting a downward adjustment on the same scale as the hitters at Coors field do....and a positional adjustment value that is half of what they are giving him now.
Knowing all this, it does make guys like Garvey shine in brighter light.
As for Grich, he gets big boosts from his defensive measurements, so you can probably just throw those WAR numbers out the window for him. >>>>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+1.....very well said.
<< <i>Interesting that AstroTurf has been said helps both the offense and the defense
If Morgan was able to take advantage of the Astrodome in ways others weren't able to, that should be to his credit, not something that should discredit him. All that matters is how much did each hit, walk and steal help his team. When runs are scarce, each of those things can go further to helping the team win
Carew was an average defense second baseman and slipping as he reached his 30s. Probably would have been more valuable to his team to stay in the middle of the diamond, but wouldn't have helped them as much as Morgan, who was better
Pete Rose was a poor defensive infielder, but very good when he moved to the outfield. He moved back to the infield later in his career so Griffey and Foster could both be in the lineup. No matter what other teammates Joe Morgan had at any time in his career, he would be the second baseman (unless perhaps he had to play short stop). If the Red Sox decided to play David Ortiz at second and Dustin Pedroia at DH, both of them would do far less to help the team. But that isn't how their skills are best used. Joe Morgan's skills made him one of the very best second baseman and one of the very best players in history
Of the 18 second baseman in the Hall-of-Fame, Grich's OPS+ of 125 is higher than all but Hornsby, Morgan, Lajoie, Collins and Robinson. To me, sixth out of 19 is a very favorable comparison (or seventh out of 20 if we count Carew). The main knock against him is his short career. But then Alomar and Sandberg (and Gordon) are the most recent ones to make it and they have the exact same liability. The strongest argument I can see against Grich for the Hall-of-Fame would be Lou Whitaker. . . >>
If you are saying that Morgan's uptick in performance in the Astrodome gave his team an advantage, then his downtick in performance on the road wiped that advantage out. What you end up with is his seasonal stat line. With that seasonal stat line, the metric is then giving him a higher value because his home park suppressed offense...but it did not suppress his performance, and with the turf, actually helped it. So he should not be getting that ballpark adjustment upwards like he is.
Pete Rose was capable of handling second base, and the point is not who was better at 2B, the point is that there are a more guys capable of playing 2B(Rose and Carew for example) who did not because of the way their roster happened to be, or because of poor managerial choice.
The reason why this matters is because when WAR looks at those putrid Bob Randall numbers and compare Morgan's performance to his like, it is giving a false impression of his value. Baseball is not played position vs position... it is played 9 vs 9. The positions do not go directly against each other. There are more guys like Carew and Rose that were exceptional hitters that were more than capable of handling 2B, that simply weren't playing there for reasons other than ability. Therefore, Morgan is getting an unfair boost in value in measurements like WAR, when it compares him to the players position.
No, Ortiz is not a candidate to play 2B....but Alex Rodriguez certainly was to play SS or 2B(and may have even been better defensively that his team's starting SS adn 2B), but he played 3B due to the nature of the roster and managerial choice.
At the time he started, Cal Ripken wasn't a conventional MLB SS, and he ended up doing just fine there...don't be too quick to dismiss others being capable.
As for the turf, it seems pretty obvious that it was a great benefit to Morgan's game. Circumstances allowed him to take full advantage of that. So in an all-time adjustment...in other era's or circumstances, where he had to play on just grass, hitting .256 and SLG .396 isn't quite as jaw dropping.
PS the WAR defensive measurements have little validity. Who cares what it says about Garvey's 1B defense! It doesn't even measure how well a 1B picks and stretches, which is a huge part of the position. How can you trust a measurement that misses such a big component of that position?? Not to mention all the other problems the WAR defensive measurement has.
The combination of the faulty positional adjustment and the very faulty defensive validity, using the total WAR figure so strongly is going to lead one to many false conclusions.
<< <i>
If you are saying that Morgan's uptick in performance in the Astrodome gave his team an advantage, then his downtick in performance on the road wiped that advantage out. What you end up with is his seasonal stat line. With that seasonal stat line, the metric is then giving him a higher value because his home park suppressed offense...but it did not suppress his performance, and with the turf, actually helped it. So he should not be getting that ballpark adjustment upwards like he is.
>>
What "metric" are we talking about? Morgan's career ops in the Astrodome was .404. That is a huge advantage for the teams he played on over the course of 596 games. In Fulton County it was .383 over 126 games; in Wrigley it was .370 in 111 games. To say that "wipes away" what actually happened when he was actually in Houston playing baseball makes absolutely no sense at all
In three of the six years Morgan played full time in the Astrodome, the entire team hit better at home than on the road. All that is built into all the stats like park factor, OPS+, WAP, WPA, et cetera
<< <i>The reason why this matters is because when WAR looks at those putrid Bob Randall numbers and compare Morgan's performance to his like, it is giving a false impression of his value. Baseball is not played position vs position... it is played 9 vs 9. The positions do not go directly against each other. There are more guys like Carew and Rose that were exceptional hitters that were more than capable of handling 2B, that simply weren't playing there for reasons other than ability. Therefore, Morgan is getting an unfair boost in value in measurements like WAR, when it compares him to the players position. >>
Morgan was a far better defensive second baseman than either Carew (about average, declining when he moved to first) or Rose (always below average). I agree it is important to often look at things not as they are, but as they could be. Yet even when we do that, we are left wondering exactly how it would have been possible to change all those at bats from Ted Sizemore, Manny Trillio, Felix Millan, Glen Beckert, Ron Hunt and dozens of similar names. If we could somehow have had Steve Garvey replace Davey Lopes or left-handed Willie McCovey to replace Tito Feuntes, we absolutely should look at Joe Morgan's career far differently. The sport itself would be far different. When we look at the sport as it is, we see the Reds having the advantage of a .900 ops from their second baseman, while the rest of the league struggled around around .600
<< <i>
What "metric" are we talking about? Morgan's career ops in the Astrodome was .404. That is a huge advantage for the teams he played on over the course of 596 games. In Fulton County it was .383 over 126 games; in Wrigley it was .370 in 111 games. To say that "wipes away" what actually happened when he was actually in Houston playing baseball makes absolutely no sense at all
In three of the six years Morgan played full time in the Astrodome, the entire team hit better at home than on the road. All that is built into all the stats like park factor, OPS+, WAP, WPA, et cetera
>>
Morgan was a far better defensive second baseman than either Carew (about average, declining when he moved to first) or Rose (always below average). I agree it is important to often look at things not as they are, but as they could be. Yet even when we do that, we are left wondering exactly how it would have been possible to change all those at bats from Ted Sizemore, Manny Trillio, Felix Millan, Glen Beckert, Ron Hunt and dozens of similar names. If we could somehow have had Steve Garvey replace Davey Lopes or left-handed Willie McCovey to replace Tito Feuntes, we absolutely should look at Joe Morgan's career far differently. The sport itself would be far different. When we look at the sport as it is, we see the Reds having the advantage of a .900 ops from their second baseman, while the rest of the league struggled around around .600 >>
NV, the ballpark factor Morgan is given, is given because the park supposedly suppressed his offense. However, it didn't. Any of his numbers that are reflected with him with that ballpark factor adjusted upwards for him, isn't accurate.
I used that example of other road parks, because it was said, "since he played so well in the Dome, it gave his team an advantage." That is true...but then it is also true that he played worse on the road as a whole, so that advantage he gained from playing so well at home is negated by playing worse on the road...leaving you with his total final batting line, which is fine.
But then the ballpark factor comes and and gives his numbers a boost because of the ballpark factor of that being a pitchers park. Since he didn't get hurt from the park, and since the turf helped him, that adjustment isn't really necessary.
I'm not sure how you can say Morgan was far better than either Carew or Rose defensively. They are pretty interchangable, and it is usually the luck/circumstances that gives them a big amount of plays over the other. However, that isn't the point.
The Reds do not have a .900 to .600 OPS advantage over the rest of the league...because there were second baseman playing other positions. The game is not played position vs. position. If it were, then you would have a point. Carew and Rose are still playing, and teams have the option to use them there too. Just because they didn't for whatever reason, doesn't make Morgan better.
If Carew and Rose were moved off of second, and then couldn't play or bat as a result, then I would agree. But, they are still playing and competing directly against Morgan(well Rose on the same team in this instance). Since the managers and circumstances moved those guys off 2B, yes, that is helpful to the Reds, but then any measurement that is giving a position adjustment, isn't just judging Morgan, it is also judging the decision making of the managers and organizations...because you still have Carew and Rose who are also Second Baseman that Morgan should be evaluated against.
Morgan is given a position adjustment over the replacement level of a second baseman.
In 1976, the league average OPS for a 2B was .650. Replacement level is figured somewhere about .550 or so(I am estimating that number). So Morgan is given a value of how far he is above that .550 level.
The funny thing about it is, in a real life example the Reds have Pete Rose as a replacement player for Morgan at second base...and Rose isn't figured into that .550 replacement level. So the Reds themselves have a replacement second baseman on their own team with an .854 OPS...a far cry from the .550 that Morgan is getting measured against.
The Reds would lose some offense going from Morgan to Rose, but not nearly to the degree that the WAR figures suggest when they measure him above replacement level.
Now you just have to go back to that circumstance thing I was talking about. It just so happened that a great hitting second baseman was on his own team, and was playing another position. It is circumstance putting Rose on his team, instead of another team in the league where he would be playing 2B and making the second base position a better hitting position.
Same goes for Carew and his team. In his case, their starting second baseman getting injured, would benefit them...if the manager were smart enough to put Carew there.
And again, it is circumstance keeping Carew's hitting from the league second base hitting totals. It isn't Morgan being better...he shouldn't be getting that credit.
Either way, that typical second baseman numbers you are putting out, are leaving out the other second baseman in the league who happen to be playing elsewhere for whatever reason.