Wednesday, April 20, 2011

The Hall of Not Famous Enough

So, in my last post, I had a Posterisk about John Olerud and The Hall of Not Famous Enough. I've gotten quite a lot of email about it, and based on some of that I'm not sure I explained the concept quite as well as I would have liked. In fact, I know I didn't explain as well as I would have liked. So I'm going to try again, with a little expansion.



The idea is this: There are players who are very clear Hall of Famers in just about everybody's mind. We know the players. Tom Seaver. Willie Mays. Babe Ruth. Roberto Clemente. Those sorts of players.

There are players who are not quite as self evident, but over time become viewed more and more as Hall of Famers, players whose Hall of Fame cases for various reasons build up momentum, players like Andre Dawson and Bert Blyleven and Jim Rice.

Then there are players who split the vote, players who many think ARE Hall of Famers and many think ARE NOT Hall of Famers. Some get in. Some do not. I would call these players Hall of Fame Cause Celebres because their cases become about as famous as they did as player. Jack Morris ... Ron Santo ... Dick Allen ... Pete Rose (of course) ... Joe Jackson (of course) ... Don Mattingly ... these are just a few of the cause celebres, they are talked about all the time, they are FAMOUS enough to get in the Hall of Fame but there is heated and passionate discussion about whether they belong.

I put Santo in my original Hall of Not Famous Enough ... and I realize that was a mistake. Santo is a clear-cut cause celebre. His Hall of Fame case has been been banged about more than just about anyones. He's plenty famous enough to get into the Hall of Fame. His career successes have simply not convinced enough people (which is a shame ... Santo belongs in the Hall of Fame).

In any case, when I talk about the Hall of Not Famous Enough, I'm talking about something different: I am talking about players who upon close examination at around the level of the average Hall of Famer at his position but still got almost NO Hall of Fame consideration, not just from the voters but from the fans too. It's the second part that matters as much as the first. The point here is that these players got almost no Hall of Fame support, and there were barely a peep about it from the general public.

John Olerud really is the perfect example. Olerud got just four Hall of Fame votes. And almost nobody cared. I have seen that on Twitter someone has tried to get a #OlerudForHoF hashtag going, though at the moment he seems to be the only one using it. Olerud's career is not just underrated -- it's quietly underrated. And I do believe, for reasons mentioned in the last post, that Olerud played baseball about as well as the average Hall of Fame first baseman.

I'm going to break this down position by position, and I'm going to use Baseball Reference's version of Wins Above Replacement (WAR) as my guidepost. I realize that people have their problems with WAR, and I don't think it's perfect. But for a quick reference point, which is what I'm looking for here, it's awfully good. It's especially good at Baseball Reference because of the search capabilities.

OK. Let's start with first base. There are 12 first basemen in the Hall of fame. The middle range for Hall of Famers is about 56 WAR -- Hank Greenberg had 56.8 WAR, Bill Terry had 55.4 WAR.

John Olerud had 56.8 WAR, placing him above that line. So he was a good enough player. And he was CLEARLY overlooked. So he fits. He belongs.

There are three first other basemen who meet the Hall of Not Famous enough criteria. I am not including Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro for what I hope are obvious reasons, and I'm not including Jeff Bagwell because I believe he will start to get a lot more support. At least I hope so.

First basemen in the Hall of Not Famous Enough:

-- Keith Hernandez (61 WAR). It amazes me that Hernandez, who won an MVP, played a prominent role for a championship team in in New York and starred both in Seinfeld and those I Can't Believe this gloop is Hair Dye commercials* is not famous enough to go to the Hall of Fame. But that seems to be the case. He's widely acknowledged to be the best defensive first baseman ever. And yet, he never got even 11% of the Hall vote, and he disappeared from the ballot without much fanfare, and it seems like the New York lobby group got behind Don Mattingly instead.

*I guess this is not what the product is actually called.

-- Will Clark (57.6 WAR). He spent one year on the ballot, got 23 votes, disappeared and nobody seems to be fighting for him even though you could make an argument that for about three years in the late 1980s he was as good as anybody in baseball.

-- John Olerud (56.8 WAR). The poster child for the Hall of Not Famous Enough.

Second base

WAR requirement: 60 (between Billy Herman's 55.6 and Ryne Sandberg's 62)

-- Lou Whitaker (69.7). Perhaps the biggest omission by the baseball writers in the last couple of decades. He got just 15 votes in his one year on the ballot and disappeared from sight. There is an effort to make Whitaker a cause celebre, but with his name long gone from the ballot it seems unlikely that his real Hall of Fame case will ever take off.

-- Bobby Grich (67.6). He IS a cause celebre among a very small circle of sabermetrically inclined people, largely because his skills (great defense, power, walked a ton) were wildly under-appreciated. He got just 11 votes his one year on the ballot, which was 30 less than Pete Rose got write-in votes. He also got almost 100 fewer votes than Maury Wills though he was a clearly superior player. Wills, of course, is a pretty famous cause celebre.

-- Willie Randolph (60.5). Randolph is such a perfect candidate for the Hall of Not Famous Enough that I actually left him off my original list. (Leading to the zen-like question: Can someone be not famous enough for the Hall of Not Famous Enough?) I guess at the time my thinking then was that I would make the WAR requirement 62, same as Sandberg. But 60 is more representative of the Hall of Fame second basemen, and Randolph -- another famous New York player who for some reason has just not captured the imagination of the masses -- got just five Hall of Fame votes, though his .373 career on-base percentage is superb. He is absolutely one of the best second basemen ever even if people don't remember him that way.

Shortstop

WAR requirement: 60 (between Lou Boudreau's 56 and Joe Cronin's 62.5)

-- Alan Trammell (66.9). Trammell and Barry Larkin are the only two non Hall of Fame shortstops with a 60 WAR or better and Larkin will go next year. Trammell does have a chance to become a bit of a cause celebre once Larkin goes in, but I don't think it will happen. Trammell and Whitaker, one of the most famous double play combinations in baseball history, figure to stay together in the Hall of Not Famous Enough.

Third base

WAR requirement 65 (between Home Run Baker's 63.7 and Brooks Robinson's 69.1)

I originally put the WAR at 60, to match shortstop and second base, and that list would have included Graig Nettles (61.6), Buddy Bell (60.8) and Sal Bando (60.6). But upon further review I see based on the third basemen in the Hall of Fame that the WAR standard for third basemen is higher.

Should the WAR standard for third base be higher? I don't think so, but this is reality. There are more cause celebre third basemen (Santo, Ken Boyer, maybe even Darrell Evans) than any other position. I suppose this is because third base is a tweener position -- the players generally don't field like shortstops, and they don't hit like corner outfielders -- and as such the Hall of Fame has been tough for third basemen to crack.

So, at this time, I don't think I'm putting any third basemen into the Hall of Not Famous Enough. it's almost like the WHOLE THIRD BASE POSITION belongs in the Hall of Not Famous Enough.

Outfield

WAR requirement: 60 (between Dave Winfield's 59.7 and Goose Goslin's 63.0)

There are a lot of outfielders in the Hall of Fame with very low WAR scores. There are the famously bad choices like Lloyd Waner (24.3) or Chick Hafey (29.5). More to the point, though, there are players of a more recent vintage like Jim Rice (41.5) and Andre Dawson (57 ... I mistakenly put 43.6 earlier). So it's tough to say -- are Jim Rice and Andre Dawson, as the last two Hall of Fame choices of the writers, the new Hall standard? You certainly could make that argument. Or are they (as I suspect) players voted into the Hall based on the romance of memory?

Rice is obviously the key here. There are 38 non-active outfielders with a 41.5 WAR who are currently not in the Hall of Fame. And while some of them have drawn some cause celebre consideration (Tony Oliva, Minnie Minoso), most have not (Cesar Cedeno, Ellis Burks, Augie Galan, etc.).

I went with 60 as as WAR requirement to keep things simple.

-- Tim Raines (64.6). I am desperately hoping that his case is gaining steam and that people are beginning to realize just how great a player he was. For now, though, I get the sense that he still belongs in the Hall of Not Famous Enough.

-- Dwight Evans (61.8). I'd say that Keith Hernandez is the most baffling member of this Hall of Not Famous Enough -- I have no idea why he was not more famous and why his case has not been taken on by more people. But Dewey is close. He was a prominent player in a famously passionate baseball city. Everyone knew he was terrific. He had a nickname. He had the great arm. He made famous plays. He made one of the most famous catches in World Series history. It's fascinating to me that Rice and Dawson became cause celebres when each of them had a teammate who was, in my view anyway, the better player and yet keeps getting very little Hall of Fame consideration.

Catcher

WAR requirement: 51 (between Gabby Hartnett's 50.3 and Mickey Cochrane's 51.2)

No non-Hall of Fame catcher quite hits the standard -- Mike Piazza, who goes on the ballot next year, is at 59.1, well above the standard. Piazza's Hall of Fame story will be interesting to watch for various reasons that are worthy of a whole other long post.

I originally had Ted Simmons on my list, but his 50.4 WAR puts him a touch below the median, and I wanted to to be sure that the players in the Hall of Not Famous Enough were pretty clearly good enough as players. Simmons was a terrific hitter. But, right or wrong, he had a reputation as a poor defensive catcher, so when arguing about Simmons the points are usually about that and not about anything else.

Starting Pitcher

WAR requirement: 60 (between Ted Lyons 58.8 and Jim Bunning 60.1)

-- Rick Reuschel (66.3). Maybe the pitching version of Olerud. Didn't get any Hall of Fame consideration (two votes his one year on the ballot). Nobody seemed to think he should have gotten any more support. And yet, he was a terrific pitcher for a long time and might have been the best pitcher in baseball in 1977. His WAR number is staggering, isn't it?

-- Kevin Brown (64.8). There was a little bit of outrage in select circles about Kevin Brown getting knocked off the ballot after one year. Mostly, though, people didn't care because nobody really liked Kevin Brown. He actually might be in the Hall of Not Likable Enough.

-- Luis Tiant (60.1). His case is a fascinating story of bad timing. He got more than 30% of the vote his first year and seemed well on his way to at least becoming a cause celebre, and maybe even earning induction. That 30% was way more than Bert Blyleven (17.5%) or Jack Morris (22.2%) or various other famous cases. Then, unfortunately for El Tiante, an unprecedented stretch of 300-game winners hit Hall of Fame eligibility all at about the same time: Gaylord Perry, Tom Seaver, Phil Niekro and Steve Carlton (not to mention excellent non-300 game winners like Jim Palmer and Fergie Jenkins).

Tiant fell off the map at that point. He lasted 15 years on the ballot, but never again came close to 30%, not even in his last year of eligibility.

Meanwhile, Catfish Hunter -- whose career is stunningly similar to Tiant -- hit the ballot three years earlier. His timing was exquisite, and he was in the Hall by 1987.

Relief Pitcher

WAR requirement: 33 (Between Bruce Sutter's 25 WAR and Rich Gossage's 40 WAR).

No pitchers qualify. The closest is Lee Smith with a 30.3 WAR. That But this not really a fair category because:

(1) There are only four pitchers -- Hoyt Wilhelm, Goose Gossage, Bruce Sutter and Rollie Fingers -- who are in the Hall of Fame solely based on their relief pitching. You could add Dennis Eckersley, but he won 151 games as a starter which was important in his Hall of Fame case. Four pitchers is not enough to give us a decent standard.

(2) Most people will tell you that WAR is not a particularly fair way to judge relievers.

The feelings about closers is still evolving, and evolving very quickly. It blows my mind that four pitchers have won MVP awards since 1975, and three were closers. Most people do understand that a great starter is more valuable than a great closer -- relievers only rarely win the Cy Young -- but for a time during the 1980s and early 1990s there was this desperate desire to turn closers into rock stars. Randy Johnson never finished higher than sixth in the MVP voting. Greg Maddux never finished higher than third. But Willie Hernandez won an MVP and so did Dennis Eckersley despite throwing only 80 innings.

Dan Quisenberry, as I have written many times, had a career that is eerily similar to Bruce Sutter. Quiz got almost no Hall of Fame support. Sutter became a cause celebre and is in the Hall. I have written about this many times because I loved Quiz, and I love his family, and because he was great and too few people remember that. But, to be blunt, I don't think Sutter was a Hall of Famer, so it's a troubling argument. I am certainly willing to open to the doors to the Hall of Not Famous Enough, and I think Quiz would be a strong candidate. But I think the opening class should be without closers.

50 comments:

  1. "Can someone be not famous enough for the Hall of Not Famous Enough?"

    Reminiscent of this Fire Joe Morgan classic: "Pity actual no-names Brian Shouse, Wes Helms and Jake Woods, so overlooked as to only garner 1% of the vote in a contest to see who the most overlooked player is."

    ReplyDelete
  2. John Olerud probably needed a haunting nickname to strike fear into the opposition. To the best of my recollection, he had nothing but that pasty white complexion and skinny frame (not that the combination doesn't work for many other HOFers!) and that damn batting helmet while playing the field. Perhaps he should become a first or third base coach - he should already feel comfortable with the helmet.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Andre Dawson's career WAR was 57.0, not 43.6. 43.6 was his WAR with Montreal only.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Looking back on my baseball-card-collecting childhood, it's fun to note how many of these players's cards were essentially worthless. Occasionally, they'd be stuffed into insert sets, but their cards were still worth almost nothing.

    Also, I play a lot of baseball quizzes on sporcle.com, and it's amazing to see how often Ellis Burks shows up on them. He's got some pretty crazy stats, too, and he only played 4 1/2 of his 18 seasons in Coors. Check it out: three years of an OPS over 1.000 (one of them NOT in Colorado, but in SF) and a career .874, a career slash line of .291/.363/.510, a 128 OPS+, 400 doubles, 350 HR, nearly 800 walks. Pretty solid career.

    His 1996 season is really weird, too.
    -He stole more bases (32) than he did in the previous 5+ seasons combined or the subsequent 4+ seasons combined
    -He had 106 more Total Bases (league-leading 392), 32 more RBI, 48 (!) more runs, 37 more hits, 0.7 more defensive WAR, and 8 more HR than any other single-season total of his career

    It was like he decided that for one year, he was going to be one of the best players on the planet, and then afterwards he'd go right back to being a solid player. The SB thing really gets me, because it's like, how does a guy suddenly become *really* fast and good at stealing bases for only one year and then fall back off the Stolen Bases Map for the rest of his career?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kevin Brown had one nasty sinker in videogames.

    ReplyDelete
  6. John Olerud might also be a candidate for the "Hall of not as good as they should have been." It seemed that for his entire career in Toronto they were trying to turn him into a power hitter, because they thought that's what a first baseman should be. In the process they destroyed one of the most beautiful natural swings in baseball history.

    The result of this was that his BA, in particular, yo-yoed over the course of his career. Had the Jays just let him be, he might have had a much better career numbers. The irony of it is that not only did the tinkering with his swing hurt his hitting for average, but it also had no effect on his power numbers.

    It did, I believe contribute to the idea that Olerud should have had better numbers than he did, therefore giving him something of an under-achiever label.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I can't wait to see your Piazza piece. I'm sitting here thinking he's a slam-dunk Hall of Famer, but I thought that about Gary Carter too and it took six years and a weak ballot to get in.
    We keep thinking we'll figure out how to rate closers, but after 75 years we still don't know how to pro-rate catcher stats,and elect send very few of them to Cooperstown.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I've never understood the lack of third basemen in the hall. A few months back while the HoF discussion was in full swing I happened across Robin Ventura's numbers and was surprised by how strong they are: 61.1 fWAR, 55.5 bWAR. He was on the ballot in 2010 and received 7 votes (1.3%).

    I suppose it's easy to see why he didn't make more noise; much of his value came from his incredible defense, while his career .267/.362/.444 slash looks somewhat pedestrian. Yet still, his .444 slash ranks 10th all-time among third basemen. I feel he's a pretty good candidate for the HoNFE.

    ReplyDelete
  9. FYI... Fangraphs has a WAR of 61.1 for Ted Simmons. Which shows how wildly different people rate defense.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The outfielder argument is a really interesting one for me. Here are side-by-side WAR graphs of four of the outfielders mentioned here: two in the HOF and two out (it's fangraphs, so their WAR is slightly different): http://www.fangraphs.com/graphsw.aspx?playerid2=1010897&playerid3=1003865&playerid4=1003091&playerid5=1013157

    Based just on the graphs and no other knowledge, who would you say are the two who should be in? I'd say on this info alone, Dwight Evans is your top choice. For number two, I'd give Trammell the edge on Dawson, but it's fairly close. Jim Rice is right out.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I loved Willie Randolph, but his career is a perfect example of where feel (and fame) come into it. He did a countless small things that help win ball games, and they all add up to a lot of WAR, but on those Yankee teams he was about as quiet as anyone could be. Based on WAR, he was a far more valuable player than Jim Rice, but I doubt there's even one percent of the fans-or GM's who, even with perfect foresight, would have traded Rice for Willie.

    ReplyDelete
  12. A question about WAR for players from the '70s, in particular the defensive component. Nobody was watching games and monitoring the trajectory of balls or their speed. Nobody was monitoring where a player was positioned. So how do they get defensive numbers? I've read before it's from retrosheet data, but those data say things like, "Hebner doubled to right", for example. This is devoid of any useful information outside of the type of hit it was. Was it a sharp grounder down the 3rd base line? A fly ball that was misjudged by the outfielder? The same goes for a single to right, or any other type of hit.

    My understanding is the defensive values for players from that era is determined by looking at a position, say right field, and tallying up the number of hits to right and the number of putouts by that player. Then they compare them to other players across the league, and then they assess a value for above or below average. It's something like that, right?

    So what if you're 1st baseman is Bill Buckner? How many singles and doubles to right occurred as a result of his extremely limited range?

    Because defensive metrics come with a wide range of error, such that you need at least 3 years of data to make any meaningful conclusions, having a poor 1st baseman allowing a smattering of hits throughout the season could easily turn a good fielder into a poor looking one, if over the course of a season 20 singles and 10 doubles were added to the "plays he did not make" column.

    It seems some people are highly skeptical of modern defensive metrics, how can anyone trust metrics from the 1970s?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Also, you didn't mention DH since I guess there aren't any in there to compare to, but would Edgar Martinez qualify for the HONFE? I know his status as DH is probably keeping him out in a lot of voters' minds as opposed to lack of awareness of his existence, but I think a more famous DH might have the clout to become a cause celebre. He ended up with 67.2 WAR, which puts him well in or above the range for all of the positions you ran through (also, a little over a quarter of his PA were as a 3B, for what it's worth).

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mike, that may be true, but with perfect hindsight, maybe they should have. That's why there's the five year delay for HOF eligibility - to give hindsight a chance to kick in.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The lack of 3Bs in the Hall isn't that mysterious. There is a perception that, because it is a corner spot, 3Bs should be sluggardly sluggers, just we expect from 1B, RF and LF. But in actuality there have been very few sluggardly slugging 3Bs throughout baseball history. That's how you wind up with Robin Ventura as 10th alltime in SLG for 3Bs. It's just too demanding a defensive position.

    At the same time, there have been just enough sluggardly slugger types among 3Bs to enable Hall voters to maintain the myth of the slugging 3B. Mathews, Brett, Schmidt, Killebrew (for a time). So the voters copntinue to hold out for 3Bs who hit like 1Bs, and of those there are very few.

    I think it's turning though. Chipper is going to get in (probably on the first ballot). Rolen has a decent shot. ARod will get in at some point. David Wright is still safely on a Hall career path. It's far, far too early say it's likely but I have high hopes for Evan Longoria.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The bottom line to why these players were so underrated or lacking in "fame" was because they were all excellent at drawing walks.

    Walking is still highly under-appreciated skill and not really seen at tremendously valuable.

    I think what it comes down to is a walk is seen as a passive or non-active event. American sports revolve around hyper-masculinity and at it's core American sports value aggressive behavior.

    Olerud had a laid-back somewhat cool personality which also hurt his persona among baseball media and sports fans. The same thing happened to Robin Ventura and Carlos Beltran. I would wager that most Mets's fans value Wally Backman or Lenny Dykstra's productivity much more than John Olerud. I think most Met's fans don't even realize that Olerud hold's the Mets single season mark for Batting average: .354, and On Base: .447.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I would pit Vic Power against any first baseman of the last 50 years for defensive ability.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "And yet, [Hernandez] never got even 11% of the Hall vote, and he disappeared from the ballot without much fanfare, and it seems like the New York lobby group got behind Don Mattingly instead."

    Because he was "Donnie Baseball" and "played the game the right way" and was the captain of the Yankees.

    (Try to picture my eyes rolling as you read that.)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Tim Raines' problem is that his last All-Star season was 1987, just one year after Jim Rice's last All-Star season. By the time he hit the ballot, his "stardom" was as distant a memory as that of players who had been on the ballot for a decade. He was a valuable player with the White Sox and Yankees, but his years as a star were in the early and mid-eighties. He played 15 more seasons, many as a part-timer (hitting the ballot 21 years after his last All-Star season). That hurts people's memory of him, even if it shouldn't.

    The first basemen suffer from a couple of things. First and foremost, they did not hit a bunch of HR. People think of first basemen who hit 15 HR a season as "solid" at best. Clark had more power early in his career, but he kind of had the Raines syndrome (wasn't a star after he left SF) and hit less than 20 HR more often than not with Texas and Baltimore. Secondly, I don't think people buy into the value of defense at 1B. All three of those guys (Clark, Olerud, and Hernandez) get big boosts for their defense in their WAR. But it's hard to look at someone like Ryan Howard and say his defense really hurts his value (he play 1B, after all), and the same thing translates the other direction.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hall of Fame voters underrate OBP and overrate Triple Crown stats. That's (at least partly) the explanation for Bagwell's depressingly low vote totals, and I predict the same thing will happen to Frank Thomas. Almost all of the guys that you mentioned here got a lot of their value from OBP and positional adjustments, and most HOF voters are stuck in 1987 in their statistical evaluations of players.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I honestly believe that an important problem in the cases of Darrell Evans and Dwight Evans is the similarity of their names. Their ability and fame levels were about the same, and if one was not a fan of one of their teams when growing up, perhaps one wouldn't fixate on either of them as a great player because of the indistinctness of his profile in one's young mind. (And the occasional mention of a Dewey Evans made it even worse-- were there really THREE players to keep straight in one's mind?) A famous name can't exist if there is brand confusion. "D. Evans" is and was a confused brand.

    If there is merit to this observation, I would say that this reason does not justify failing to elect a player to the Hall of Fame, even if it helps explain the failure.

    ReplyDelete
  22. In Bagwell's case, I think a number of HOF voters are concerned about alleged steroid use (denied by him), and are hesitant to vote for him until the situation is clarified. As for Frank Thomas, even with the mediocre end to his career, I don's see how you can keep him out. He's ridiculously qualified. A HOF that takes Rice and omits Thomas needs to reexamine its own standards.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Evans had a nondescript 1st half of his career. His first 9 seasons he put up a .262/.344/.448 line (114 OPS+). Considering Evans had teammates like Rice, Lynn, Fisk, Yaz and Tiant during these seasons, you can see how Evans was overshadowed. He simply didn't deserve HoF accolades for those years.

    When he finally turned it around, his best seasons just happened to be seasons when the Red Sox were not really in contention. I'm talking '81, '82, '84 and '87, seasons when the Red Sox finished in 5th, 3rd, 4th and 5th, respectively. When '86 rolled around, at a time in his career when Evans was playing HoF caliber ball, he put up a 4.5 WAR, which was overshadowed again by Rice (5.9), Boggs (8.6) and Clemens (7.9).

    If his career had been flipped, such that his first 11 seasons he put up a 135 OPS+, and his last 9 seasons he put up a 114 OPS+, we might be looking at a HoFer. Evans just did the whole thing backwards.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Willie Randolph = Omar Vizquel?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Maybe Joe should do another post, the "Hall of Really Solid Players"

    ReplyDelete
  26. One point which I think should be made is that in the parlance of the time it was named, they meant fame as in being worth of fame (or honor). It was not that they were trying to recognize the famous, but to say that they deserved accolades.
    They might have spared us some bad Colin Cowherd rants if they had named it the Hall of Greats.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @ Marshall...I think you're reading too much literalism into the name of Joe's Hall.

    I feel confident in saying that literally every single commenter here gets that the Hall of Fame is not (and never was) about recognizing the famous.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Mark Daniel - your post where you end with "It seems some people are highly skeptical of modern defensive metrics, how can anyone trust metrics from the 1970s?"...I've wondered this same thing myself for a while now. Nice post. Can anyone answer this regarding defensive metrics (not just for the 70s, but for all baseball history prior).

    ReplyDelete
  29. All of these players were overlooked for one of any several reasons that contributed to their under-appreciation while they were active and when they first appeared on the ballot:
    1) played for multiple teams during their prime years, thus not attracting a legion of supportive fans (Olerud, Clark, Reuschel)
    2) had their best years early in their careers and thus were distant memories by the time they came on the ballot (Raines, Hernandez, Tiant)
    3) were overshadowed by more famous, personable, flashy teammates that has(superficially or not) superior raw statistics(Evans, Randolph, Grich)
    4) whose careers happened to overlap with one or more historically great players at their own position: Raines v. Henderson; Trammel v. Ripken/Ozzie; Whitaker v. Sandberg.

    I think Blyleven suffered from the same issues until he was able to slip in during a weak HoF year.

    ReplyDelete
  30. WAR can mislead. the definition of replacement level is low, thus over-rewarding health and longevity. Evaluations of fielding for old-timers have a pretty wide error band. And fielding at 1B is hard to get at. I'd argue that a lot of guys mentioned here belong in the Hall of Just Not Good Enough. E.g. Randolph, Bell, Hernandez, Clark. Plenty famous (except for Bell). Just not good enough.

    I like the comment immediately above listing the reasons some guys get overlooked. But disagree that doing your best work early in your career works against you. I think it's the other way around. Guys like Rice and Dawson who make a big first impression get cut some slack. It's late bloomers like Whitaker, Dwight Evans, Edgar Martinez who get the shaft. It's hard for folks to change their minds and accept these guys as great.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Jay, a couple posts above, has many good insights into why these players did not get proper HoF consideration. Tigers fans, of whom I am one, like to think that Trammell and Whitaker would be in the Hall if they had been Yankees. Tell that to Willie Randolph. Many of these players who were assigned by voters to the island of misfit toys just did not have the simplistic statistical mystique that voters were looking for when they were up for consideration. Randolph was fabulous, but he never scored 100 runs. Hernandez never hit 20 homers and he was a first baseman. It would be tedious to go on, but it's true. At least Cy Young candidates don't all have to win 20 games anymore. I guess that's progress, but it's too late for most of the great players Joe named to benefit from this progress.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Loved loved loved having Olerud on the Mets. My favorite memory of his time with them is an anecdote that began a New York Times article about Olerud and Al Leiter (Hall of the Wish He Was Good Enough for the Hall of Fame?) taking a cab to Shea. Leiter jabbered on and on about his game plan, and Olerud just sat and listened, saying almost nothing. That's the whole story, but it tickles me to think about. Of course, much of the time Olerud got to Shea on the #7 train.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The historical defensive metrics are derived from Total Zone, developed by the great Sean Smith. Some details are at Baseball Reference:

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/total_zone.shtml

    and the Hardball Times:

    http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/measuring-defense-for-players-back-to-1956/

    ReplyDelete
  34. @4914061a-4c54-11e0-b34b-000bcdcb471e - after reading those articles, unfortunately I'm more confused then ever in regards to older defensive metrics. I appreciate the links that you posted though.

    ReplyDelete
  35. You honestly think John Olerud should be in the HOF? When was the last time you were at Cooperstown? Not many rings for Olerud- Blue Jays or the Mariners? 2x All-Star, no MVP, less than 300 lifetime HRs... no way!!!

    ReplyDelete
  36. @ Jay - Great points. On Trammell and Whitaker, though, both of those guys outshadowed Ozzie and Sandberg, respectively, during their eras. Ozzie's wizardry was repopularized in the mid-'90s on highlight reels, and Ryno became a beloved figure after his retirement, remaining still mostly a Chicago celebrity. It's well to remember that Trammell was better than Ozzie Smith and Lou was better than Sandberg. Their fame was hurt by lackluster ends to their careers and that the Tigers were a forgot-about franchise during the mid- to late-'90s. In a Hall of Fame candidacy, the 5 years after your retirement are almost as important as the last 5 years of your career.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "But disagree that doing your best work early in your career works against you. I think it's the other way around. Guys like Rice and Dawson who make a big first impression get cut some slack. It's late bloomers like Whitaker, Dwight Evans, Edgar Martinez who get the shaft. It's hard for folks to change their minds and accept these guys as great."
    ---------------------------
    That's probably true, but Raines is an exceptional case. He was on the ballot 21 years after his last All-Star Game. Nearly a whole generation saw him as a merely solid or part-time player.

    There are other factors (his great years weren't for playoff teams and in Canada and tainted by cocaine, overshadowed by Henderson and Gwynn and Carter and Dawson, subtle skills like walking and high SB success rate, etc.) But I think the single biggest factor is the 21 years.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Misopogon, I'd vote for Trammell without trying to make him better than Ozzie-very different players, and (sorry to throw a stink bomb in here), given that there is a bit of the speculative in defensive stats, I'm not sure what WAR does when comparing such dissimilar players. I think Trammell's bigger problem was less about being in Detroit late in his career and more that it was ending just as the new generation of really big hitting shortstops were emerging. In short order, he found himself compared to ARod, Nomar, Jeter and Tejada and just didn’t seem that special.

    ReplyDelete
  39. NMark W, you are abolutely correct. It is the batting helmet keeping Olerud out.

    What the heck was that all about anyway? Have any first basemen ever been seriously injured by screaming liners? (actually that's a fair question). No doubt Olerud's mom made him wear it.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Jack-on Olerud's helmet, if I recall, he had a cerebral aneurism removed and needed to wear the helmet.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Sweet Lou and Tram deserve to be in!

    ReplyDelete
  42. A couple days ago BR Sandy commented on Vic Power's skills as a defensive first baseman saying he would put Vic Power's defensive abilities up against any other MLB first basemen in the last 50 years. I have no idea about UZR and the most I know about WAR is "what is it good for? - absolutely nuttin'" but I must concur that Vic Power was an absolute showman when he put on the firstbase mitt. I can still vaguely see in my memory Vic Power moving around the first base bag like a dancer, especially when he was holding a runner close to the bag. The fans in Cleveland loved him. I swear a lot more folks wanted to sit on the firstbase side of diamond than third base side when Vic was playing first.
    I honestly don't know if he was THAT GREAT of a first baseman but he sure was a joy to watch! And, is there a much better MLB name all-time than simply 'Vic Power'?

    ReplyDelete
  43. bryant gumbel and jeff pearlman started and maintained an attack on jeff bagwell, calling him a dirty cheat and a bad person for not going to the media/standing up at player meetings about steroid use. i would be very surprised if he gets more support, seeing as how he can't PROVE that some man didn't inject something into his hind quarters.

    like a lot of the othere here, i got a very hard time agreeing to judge players by WAR, as defensive stats are certainly inconsistant. AND sorry, fielding WAR from pre-strike are, um, imaginary numbers.

    Also, it is difficult to see someone as a Hall of Famer in an offensive position who derives a great deal of his WAR numbers from fielding. Olerud was a good baseball player, but he is not raines who was simply overshadowed by someone greater - MANY first basemen had better careers than olerud

    agree that ballplayers who walk are sneered at by fans/lots of BBWAA. because Real Men ground out/popup on pitches out of the strike zone instead.

    wonder how long it will be before walks and/or OBP will be posted on scoreboards along with HR/RBI/K

    ReplyDelete
  44. Unfortunately for Olerud, the most famous thing about him is the helmet. That and the related Ricky Henderson story. He was a little to quiet for the HOF.

    I would like to see Quiz get more attention for the Hall.

    ReplyDelete
  45. An issue for HOF that is not so much an issue for GMs is longevity. Do I want a player who gets 3 WAR a year for 20 years, for 5 WAR a year for 10 years? As a HOF voter, I might prefer the former because of the clearly larger career totals. But as a GM I'd much rather have the latter, because it's much easier to find a 3 WAR player than a 5 WAR player, and what keeps GMs employed is bunching the WAR. Put another way, a GM would prefer to alternate teams that are 40 WAR (probably a playoff team) and 0 WAR (a terrible team) then a team that gets 20 WAR every year (probably never a playoff team). And not many fans come to see steady players but do come to see the really hot player. Thus, peak value is an important consideration for HOF, and peak value per year for ten best years is probably even a better one. I loved Willie Randolph and would rather see him in the HOF than Jim Rice, but even I acknowledge that for a prescient GM, trading rookie Rice for rookie Randolph would be unthinkable.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I agree with Dinky's post immediately above, although I think he should consider using a different handle. It's another reason why career WAR should be taken with a grain of salt. Joe is using WAR for a purpose different from the one for which it was created. WAR was invented to put $ values on player performances, not to compare careers.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Keith Hernandez, Don Mattingly, Willie Randolph. If you like, add John Olerud, Robin Ventura, Graig Nettles.

    Now, somebody please post about the "New York bias" in awards voting.

    ReplyDelete
  48. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete