What happens when the BBWAA makes a mistake?

It’s hard to figure, but what exactly do we do when the BBWAA makes a mistake? It doesn’t happen very often. After all, sometimes a player might be a borderline player as we saw with first basemen like Tony Perez and George Sisler. However, they could hardly be called mistakes when there are as many people that would support their candidacies as people that opposed their candidacies. In the case of third basemen we have one member of the BBWAA group that clearly doesn’t belong.

Obviously, he can’t be removed, so focusing on him is not really about him as much as it is about finding out why the mistake was made in the first place. The Veterans Committee regularly made decisions that were idiosyncratic in nature. Those decisions bordered on scandalous in some cases because some of the players selected were woefully unqualified. Yet, when it happened to the BBWAA it wasn’t nefarious in nature. It was simply built on faulty assumptions that we can hopefully learn from. The problem can be seen immediately when we look at the index.

Career Value 

  bWAR fWAR WS/5 Total
Mike Schmidt 106.8 106.5 93.6 306.9
Eddie Mathews 96.6 96.1 90.0 282.7
George Brett 88.7 84.6 86.4 259.7
Wade Boggs 91.4 86.3 78.8 256.5
Chipper Jones 85.2 84.8 83.2 253.2
Brooks Robinson 78.4 80.2 71.2 229.8
Paul Molitor 75.7 67.6 82.8 226.1
Pie Traynor 36.3 37.8 54.8 128.9

The index has always worked more like an SAT question than a hard and fast breakdown. We ask ourselves which of these does not belong. So, it isn’t so much that Pie Traynor scored under 200, 175, or even 150. It is the fact that he is so far removed from Paul Molitor that there really is no defense for putting him in the Hall of Fame. The index can tell you why he doesn’t belong in the Hall of Fame, but it can’t tell why they BBWAA chose to vote for him in the first place. For that, we will need to look at the offensive and defensive numbers individually.

However, before we get there we should take a look at the peak value numbers. Who knows, maybe Traynor had a great ten-year peak and was horrible during the rest of the time. Perhaps the others were not nearly as good in their ten-year peak as they were throughout their entire careers. Yet, It is much more likely that we will see more of the same.

Peak Value 

  bWAR fWAR WS/5 Total
Mike Schmidt 79.2 78.6 66.4 224.2
Eddie Mathews 71.6 71.3 65.2 208.1
Wade Boggs 69.7 64.8 57.2 191.7
George Brett 63.3 60.3 54.0 177.6
Chipper Jones 66.2 55.3 51.8 173.3
Brooks Robinson 56.2 55.0 47.8 159.0
Paul Molitor 42.0 40.0 44.0 126.0
Pie Traynor 33.8 34.8 49.0 117.6

Half of the supposition was right. Traynor had almost the same peak value as career value. So, when we see the total index his score won’t come out looking that bad. His win shares were considerably higher than the WAR scores from both sources. We will get to that soon enough, but before we do we should take a look at the total index scores for all of these guys before moving on to the offensive and defensive numbers.

Hall of Fame Index

  Career Peak Total
Mike Schmidt 306.9 224.2 531.1
Eddie Mathews 282.7 208.1 490.8
Wade Boggs 256.6 191.7 448.2
George Brett 259.7 177.6 437.3
Chipper Jones 253.2 173.3 426.5
Brooks Robinson 229.8 159.0 388.8
Paul Molitor 226.1 126.0 352.1
Pie Traynor 128.9 117.6 246.5

When these scores are revealed it is always important to remind everyone that the index was never designed to rank the players in order. That being said, it seems rather obvious that Mike Schmidt was head and shoulders over everyone else on this list. Eddie Mathews is clearly in the second position based on the numbers. From there, you have three players that are pretty darn close. That will be four when Adrian Beltre retires. Robinson and Molitor are a shade behind, but over the usual mark for Hall of Famers.

Traynor just doesn’t fit and he is nowhere near the borderline zone either. In fact, if one considers only the two WAR scores then he comes out looking even worse. Still, 300 win shares is the normal mark for Hall of Famers and he falls well below that mark. So, how did this happen and how can we prevent it from happening in the future?

Offensive Numbers

  OPS+ Rbaser wRC+ OW% wOBA+
Mike Schmidt 147 -1 147 .727 .395
Eddie Mathews 143 1 143 .704 .389
Chipper Jones 141 3 141 .705 .397
George Brett 135 34 132 .668 .374
Wade Boggs 131 -8 132 .677 .381
Paul Molitor 122 78 122 .623 .361
Pie Traynor 107 -1 107 .523 .366
Brooks Robinson 104 2 104 .587 .322

At first glance, it would appear that Traynor is not as bad as his index score would make him out to be, but that also ignores why he was voted into the Hall of Fame in the first place. He had a career .320 batting average. Back in those days, there was a certain folk lore behind batting average. So, his election was a proverbial double whammy. On the one hand, you had a group of people that paid way too much attention to batting average. He was an excellent contact hitter, but he didn’t draw a ton of walks. So, his career OBP was a solid .362, but that isn’t a tremendous OBP in any era for a Hall of Fame hitter.

The second problem is the issue of time. We established very early on in this series, that time is one of the great biases of analysis. Traynor never led the league in batting average. So, even if we were going to go strictly by batting average then we would still conclude that he was not as dominant as the raw numbers would indicate. It is important to introduce another number. Secondary average calculates everything a hitter does beyond batting average. If we combine those two numbers we can get a different look at these eight players.

  AVG SEC AOV
Mike Schmidt .267 .450 .359
Eddie Mathews .271 .411 .341
Wade Boggs .328 .267 .297
George Brett .305 .299 .302
Chipper Jones .303 .406 .355
Paul Molitor .306 .277 .292
Pie Traynor .320 .193 .256
Brooks Robinson .267 .215 .241

In many ways, this is saying the same thing as those other numbers. However, secondary average makes it easy to see hidden value or someone that is overrated because secondary average can be interpreted the same way as batting average. Again, Brooks Robinson comes out looking weaker offensively, but we haven’t seen the fielding numbers yet. As we know, Robinson has the most Gold Gloves of any position player outside the mound. So, let’s see how Traynor fared in comparison.

Fielding Numbers 

  Rfield DWAR TZ3B DWS TZ WS
Brooks Robinson 293 39.1 294 106.2 8 6
Mike Schmidt 127 18.4 130 85.9 6 5
Wade Boggs 104 13.9 96 72.6 1 3
George Brett 47 2.2 54 54.1 1 1
Eddie Mathews 33 5.6 32 57.3 2 0
Paul Molitor 8 -6.9 8 39.9 0 0
Chipper Jones -24 -0.9 -29 47.6 0 0
Pie Traynor -32 2.1 -28 77.3 3

As we can see, the various sources were divided on Traynor as a defender. Win shares seems to love him giving him more Gold Gloves than all but Robinson and Schmidt and giving him more career win shares than all but the same. Granted, some of those guys played multiple positions, but we tried to mitigate that as much as possible. However, even if we accept win shares by itself, Robinson is in a whole different league than any of these guys.

So, we can excuse his pedestrian offensive numbers in that light. When we add in baseball reference and fangraphs numbers it is just simply unfathomable as to how we he could get into the Hall of Fame. He was not a special hitter or a special fielder. He did not enjoy a particularly long career. It just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

The Adventures of Sweet Lou Whitaker

A lot of science goes into choosing Hall of Famers. Most of the voters in the BBWAA are very thoughtful about their ballot and most of them are on the money with their selections. However, no one can deny that there is a certain amount of serendipity involved in the selection process. If we look at second base for instance we have to ask ourselves if Bill Mazeroski would have been selected by the Veterans Committee if he had not hit the walk off home run that won the 1960 World Series.

Most of the players in the Hall of Fame have some kind of magical moment or a calling card they are known for. The irony is that the rules discourage voters for placing a vote on the basis of a single accomplishment. For instance, pitcher Rube Marquard won the most consecutive games without a loss and had a Broadway play based on the accomplishment. The fame went a long way in getting him inducted to the Hall of Fame. The rest of his career lacked the punch necessary to get him in. The Veterans Committee overlooked that.

This brings us to Lou Whitaker. His teammate, Alan Trammel, just got in through the new version of the Veterans Committee. He and Whitaker were similar in that they did not have many signature moments. The Tigers were good throughout the 1980s, but they were rarely ever great. When they were great that greatness was usually attributed to someone else.

1981: 60-49 (2nd)

1982: 83-79

1983: 92-70 (2nd)

1984: 104-58 (World Champions)

1985: 84-77

1986: 87-75

1987: 98-64 (Lost in ALCS)

Had they done this in the 1990s or the 2000s they likely would have had four playoff appearances. The Tigers had quite a bit of talent in 1984. Jack Morris and Trammel are in the Hall of Fame this season and players like Lance Parrish, Darrell Evans, and Kirk Gibson have been sniffing around it. Willie Hernandez was the MVP in the AL that season as a closer. The makeup of the team remain unchanged throughout the period for the most part, but a little here and a little there can make a big difference.

For all of their grandstanding, some in the BBWAA just don’t look beyond the glitz and glamour and simply soak in the numbers. Whitaker doesn’t have a nickname or a signature moment to hang his hat on. He was never the best player in the league and never led in a traditional statistical category. That obviously isn’t going to change, so maybe we need to look into getting him a nickname. First, let’s take a look at the index scores for him and Willie Randolph.

Career Value

  bWAR fWAR WS/5 Total
Lou Whitaker 75.1 68.1 70.2 213.4
Willie Randolph 65.9 62.1 62.4 190.4

At first blush, both of these guys belong in, but there is really no excuse for Whitaker to be out. Randolph admittedly takes a little more imagination because much of his value (as we will see) is with the glove. However, Whitaker’s career numbers in the traditional categories are just as impressive as his numbers above. Usually those are well hidden, but they aren’t in Whitaker’s case

Hits: 2369

HR: 244

Runs: 1386

RBI: 1084

SB: 143

BB: 1197

2B: 420

3B: 65

None of those numbers are overwhelming, but they are strong numbers. Additionally, he was the Rookie of the Year in 1978, he won four Gold Glove Awards, and three Silver Slugger awards. None of those things mean anything, but they do demonstrate that he was well regarded by the writers when he played. He bested Randolph in every category and won more Gold Gloves and Silver Slugger awards than Randolph as well. As we will see, that reputation was not deserved.

Peak Value

  bWAR fWAR WS/5 Total
Lou Whitaker 48.4 45.9 45.6 139.9
Willie Randolph 43.1 40.1 44.2 127.4

Here we see a little glimpse into why both of these players are on the outside looking in. Both were good players for a very long time, but neither was great. Bill James called this the black ink test. How many times does a player lead the league in a statistical category? Neither player littered the encyclopedia with black ink. They were simply good players throughout their career. Whitaker did not quite approach Bobby Grich’s index score, but he comes pretty darn close. He is also superior to a player or two that is already in the Hall of Fame.

It’s been said often, but it bears repeating: players that are good with the bat and the glove often get overlooked in favor of someone that is great in one facet or the other. Sadly, if someone is not the best at something they get overlooked. Their value is overlooked. People focus on superlatives and deplorables. Watch any good team long enough and you’ll realize that average players have value. Often, those players are the difference makers. Replace a below average or bad player with an average one and you’ll see more improvement then going average to above average or good to very good.

Hall of Fame Index

  Career Peak Total
Lou Whitaker 213.4 139.9 353.3
Willie Randolph 190.4 127.4 317.8

Whitaker is clearly a Hall of Famer. There really is no excuse for him not being in. Randolph exists in what we might call the borderline zone. It largely depends on your personal philosophy on what the Hall of Fame should be about. He and Jeff Kent have similar Hall of Fame cases. Randolph was a superlative defender while Kent was the better hitter. If you think the Hall of Fame is a museum that should celebrate the history of the game then both should be in. If you think it is a place for only the very best then neither should be in. Either way, we should table this until we look at the offensive and defensive numbers.

Offensive Numbers

  OPS+ Rbaser OW% wRC+ wOBA
Whitaker 117 32 .594 118 .353
Randolph 104 41 .537 110 .335

No one really disputes the fact that Whitaker was the better hitter, but offensive winning percentage might really tell the tale better than the other categories. A team of Whitakers would win 96 games a year and that is assuming he is stone cold average with the glove. Randolph would win 87 games. Obviously, that’s not great, but when we consider the whole package it might come off looking a little better.

We have to keep in mind that these numbers are a comparison with the whole MLB universe. Your second basemen is usually not expected to be one of your better hitters. So, when you have someone that is above average that actually means they are usually better when compared to the average second basemen. This will come out better when we look at the fielding numbers.

Fielding Numbers

  Rfield DWAR TZ DWS WS/1000
Whitaker 77 16.3 77 87.2 4.57
Randolph 114 20.2 114 97.4 5.23

Whitaker was a good fielder by every available metric. Randolph was a great one. It is unfortunate that he never got credit for that defense while he played. We could go into depth about how the Gold Glove awards are selected, but suffice it to say, it is a less than scientific process. That might be costing Randolph with the traditional crowd who don’t look too deeply into a player’s resume. Both players demonstrated they were at least above average with the bat, on the bases, and with the glove. That combination should be enough for them to get in.

Randolph is borderline, so anyone that says no on him can be forgiven for having an opposing point of view. Whitaker simply doesn’t make sense. No, he did not lead the league in any statistical category. He never won an MVP (or have a top five finish). He had no signature seasons. He didn’t win a huge playoff game with a game winning hit. He doesn’t even have a nickname. Well, that changes today. From here on out he will be Sweet Lou Whitaker. I have no idea if that nickname fits his personality or how he was viewed by his teammates. It doesn’t matter. Hopefully, it is enough to get him in.

Modern Second Basemen

The history of baseball is a cyclical one. At certain points certain positions have more Hall of Fame players than others. With the exception of third basemen (which we will get to later) each position has roughly the same number of BBWAA elected Hall of Famers. So, it is unique to see this many modern candidates for the honor, but there are four very qualified Hall of Fame candidates and another I’m throwing in to indulge myself.

We have seen that 300 is the normal benchmark for Hall of Fame fitness in terms of an index score. A 300 score does not and should not guarantee enshrinement, but it should guarantee a conversation and that is what we are giving these guys. With the exception of Chase Utley, all of them have at least a few seasons left to add to their resume. However, all of them are closer to the end than they are to the beginning. Let’s start with career value.

Career Value

  bWAR fWAR WS/5 Total
Robinson Cano 67.6 54.6 65.4 187.6
Chase Utley 65.5 63.1 58.2 186.8
Ian Kinsler 56.2 46.2 47.6 150.0
Dustin Pedroia 52.1 46.8 47.6 148.1
Ben Zobrist 44.1 42.4 42.4 128.9

There is an easy place to start here, but a more interesting place to start is Ian Kinsler. Baseball is an interesting game. The Angels have three Hall of Famers on their roster if you count Kinsler. That doesn’t even count the likes of Justin Upton or Andrelton Simmons. Still, they are mired in fourth place in the AL West. This is because only half of those players are performing like Hall of Famers. It’s always about timing.

The 64,000 pound elephant in the room is Cano and his drug suspension. Where does this put him in the Hall of Fame conversation? This always depends on your take on the conversation. For some, PED use is an automatic disqualifier. This is the moralistic group that objects on the grounds that it is an unforgiveable sin against baseball. Then there is a second group. They are more inclined to be pragmatic. They look at the circumstances of the suspension and use. Did his use impact his numbers in a significant way or did he use to recover from injury? He has said he used to come back from injury and his numbers have never been out of whack, so it is hard to pinpoint a point when he started using.

The third group doesn’t particularly care about use. They are more apt to think of the history of cheating from greenies to scuffed balls to corked bats. The question comes down to how many people used in this current generation. If we can assume that as much as half have used (as some former players have asserted) then we have to compare players with their contemporaries. I usually place myself in the second group. I’m a pragmatist which means I take every case on its own merits. If he continues to produce as he always has then he might prove his explanation for the use.

So, the only definite Hall of Famer in the group might be Utley. Then again, nothing is definite. Utley is where he is largely for the same reason as Bobby Grich. He was a very good hitter and a very good defender during his prime. He arguably was never great at either facet of the game, but the individual offensive and defensive numbers later on.

Peak Value

  bWAR fWAR WS/5 Total
Chase Utley 59.6 57.9 48.8 166.3
Robinson Cano 58.5 47.3 53.6 159.4
Dustin Pedroia 51.5 46.0 45.8 143.3
Ian Kinsler 50.9 41.6 41.8 134.3
Ben Zobrist 44.9 42.8 40.2 127.9

Pedroia is a natural addition even though he isn’t that close to 300 yet. He has an MVP to his credit and he has played a prominent role on one of the better teams of the 21st century. Ben Zobrist is not as obvious. He is what most people would consider to be a man crush. He is essentially Bobby Grich on steroids. Not only does he contribute a lot of value both offensively and defensively, but he has done so at six different positions throughout his career.

Intellectually, I know he probably will not accrue enough value before he retires. There are lots of good players that will never get into the Hall of Fame and never should. Some people like guys like Gil Hodges while I like guys like Zobrist. However, we will keep running through this exercise in case we miss something. Before we get to the offensive and defensive numbers in isolation let’s take a look at the total Hall of Fame Index.

Hall of Fame Index

  Career Peak Total
Chase Utley 186.8 166.3 353.1
Robinson Cano 187.6 159.4 347.0
Dustin Pedroia 148.1 143.3 291.4
Ian Kinsler 150.0 134.3 284.3
Ben Zobrist 128.9 127.9 256.8

The index is nothing but a guide. We can surmise that Pedroia and Kinsler will reach 300 before they hang it up. So, we could assert that the conversation is a four way conversation. However, I just don’t feel comfortable eliminating Zobrist from consideration. I feel like we are missing something. The first place we should start is at the MVP voting for Zobrist. So, we will look at his finishes in the voting as compared to his finishes in bWAR.

  MVP bWAR Finish
2009 8 8.6 1
2010 * 4.6 *
2011 16 7.6 5
2012 18 5.8 6
2013 * 5.1 *
2014 * 5.0 *
2015 * 1.9 *
2016 * 3.7 *

So, according to this, Zobrist should have been the MVP in 2009 and should have one top five finish and another top ten finish. Baseball-reference does not keep track of anything outside of the top ten in terms of single season WAR, so it is highly likely that he finished in the top 20 in three other seasons. That certainly would change the way he is perceived by the BBWAA when he is done. You could claim that he is about as misunderstood as any player in the history of the game.

Offensive Numbers

  OPS+ OW% wRC+ wOBA Rbaser
Chase Utley 117 .637 119 .357 45
Robinson Cano 126 .605 126 .362 -6
Dustin Pedroia 113 .598 116 .353 7
Ian Kinsler 109 .557 109 .342 40
Ben Zobrist 114 .575 116 .343 9

So, Cano is a cut above offensively, but when you look at the basic numbers that is not all that surprising. The rest is pretty close with Kinsler being a cut below the rest. Of course, we don’t know how this all plays in until we look at the fielding numbers as well. We know based on reputation that Utley and Kinsler are good, but there is no way to tell which one is better looking strictly at Gold Glove awards. Neither won nearly as many as they should have. We will get to the fielding data in a minute.

The interesting inclusion here is the base running information. Both Kinsler and Utley were plus base runners in addition to being plus hitters. That’s the way guys like them become Hall of Famers. They are good at every facet of the game and then you look up and they are very good players. It’s the kind of effect that some traditionalists overlook when they are asking whether someone should be in the Hall of Fame or not.

Fielding Numbers

  Rfield DWAR UZR DWS DRS
Chase Utley 141 18.3 94.7 69.3 143
Robinson Cano 29 9.4 -24.3 98.5 31
Dustin Pedroia 99 15.5 96.6 65.9 97
Ian Kinsler 115 17.7 35.7 61.1 116
Ben Zobrist 38 7.4 57.8 50.6 58

Defensive numbers are not linear. We cannot combine them into one number and give us one outcome. Win shares, total zone runs, and defensive runs saved all work differently. This doesn’t even mention defensive WAR. What we do is look at the order of the data to see if we see any patterns. Utley and Kinsler rank one and two in most of the categories.

Cano and Pedroia rank high in some categories as well. This leaves Zobrist on the outside looking in in virtually all of the categories. However, the fact that he played six different positions with some regularity, so it’s hard to treat him the same way as the others. However, since DRS keeps records since 2005, let’s take a look at Utley and Kinsler to see how many Gold Gloves they should have won.

  Kinsler Rank Utley Rank
2003 N/A 1 N/A
2004 N/A 7 N/A
2005 N/A 20 3
2006 -3 22 18 2
2007 4 11 18 3
2008 -9 30 30 1
2009 22 1 12 6
2010 8 5 17 2
2011 17 2 7 7
2012 1 20 9 8
2013 11 4 -4 26
2014 20 1 3 12
2015 19 1 -1 20
2016 12 1 -3 24
2017 6 3 1 16

Billjamesonline.com does not break down fielders by league, so when we see these guys finish in the top three at the position we can assume that they would have been good enough to win the Gold Glove. So, if we go by that standard then Kinsler would have won six Gold Gloves while Utley would have won five Gold Gloves. Kinsler has two other top five finishes while Utley has a few top ten finishes on top of those Gold Gloves.

The idea here is that good still has value here. When you are good in all facets of the game then you are great. That is something all five of these players can claim. Cano might be the only elite performer in any facet but all of them are at least above average in every facet. So, when it is all said and done you could have at least four Hall of Famers from this era.

The Ballad of Bobby Grich

Bobby Grich is the Rosetta Stone between the old baseball world and the new age baseball world. If you’ve read my baseball writing before you’ve probably heard me talk about this issue before. The standard response from the old baseball world is that they know a great player when they see one. I give you Bobby Grich. Grich is a mostly forgotten man in traditional baseball circles, but for stat heads he is the Holy Grail.

The irony of the debate is easy to see. Traditionalists love to say that they know great players when they see them. I would argue that we all do, but let’s leave that aside for a moment. Invariably, those on the traditional side will use numbers to their defense. In these cases we use the traditional counting numbers instead of the new numbers. We don’t need to the new numbers to tell us who was great. That’s just a crutch.

Of course, really smart people have reservations about some of these metrics. Those reservations are based on well thought out objections to the math involved. This diatribe is really not aimed at them. We should always check ourselves and our assumptions so we grow in our analysis. There are far too many people that dismiss all of this out of hand. So, let’s take a look at Grich’s career and see why these two groups see him differently. Then, maybe we can decide who is right after all.

This isn’t to say the traditionalists are completely unsystematic. They have a few things they look at in addition to brute, raw numbers. The first test they often take is the black ink test. This is simply the number of times a player led the league in a statistical category. He led the league in home runs and slugging percentage in 1981 and played in every game in 1973. That was it. The second test was basic awards voting like Gold Gloves, Silver Sluggers, and all-star game. Grich played in six all-star games, won four Gold Gloves, and a silver slugger award.

There are no hard and fast rules on either test, but those results usually mean you’ve ended up short. Most voters look for players that play in around ten all-star games. He had a good fielding reputation based on the Gold Gloves, but the voters usually like more. Obviously, winning only one silver slugger is not all that impressive comparatively.

The third and final test was where a player finished in the awards voting. Grich finished with two top ten finishes in the MVP voting. He finished in the top 20 three other times. Usually a player that finishes no higher than eighth has no business being in the Hall of Fame. Yet, this is where traditional wisdom and the new methodology differs. He finished in the top ten four times in bWAR including 2nd in 1973 and 5th in 1981. Two top five finishes to go with those two top ten finishes would have made him look considerably better. Ironically enough, he had only two seasons where he was the best fielding second basemen according to total zone runs. He did finish in the top ten four other times.

The long and short of it is that Grich looks better when you start comparing him with the replacement level or average player. Grich was at the very least above average offensively and defensively simultaneously. Sometimes it is easy to overlook the combination effect of being better than average or merely good at every facet of the game. The pundits saw an above average player, but the numbers reveal a very good player. So, let’s take a look at how he fared in the index.

  bWAR fWAR WS/5 Total
Bobby Grich 71.1 69.1 65.8 206.0

If this is the first article you are reading on this site then the numbers above are meaningless to you. All statistics must have a context. The best thing we can do is look at his contemporaries and see how they fared. Grich played in both the 1970s and 1980s, but he was considerably better in the 1970s. If we take a look at their index scores we might see what the above numbers mean.

  bWAR fWAR WS/5 Total
Willie Randolph 65.9 62.1 62.4 190.4
Lou Whitaker 75.1 68.1 70.2 213.4
Davey Lopes 42.4 41.8 48.0 132.2
Phil Garner 29.7 28.2 39.0 96.9
Frank White 34.8 31.1 42.2 108.1
Tom Herr 23.5 22.9 34.0 80.4
Steve Sax 25.7 22.6 39.6 87.9

We will cover the Hall of Fame cases for Randolph and Whitaker in a subsequent article. However, the other guys were all fair country ballplayers and they were all significantly worse than Grich in the index. How does this happen? Well, that can only be explained by looking at some other numbers. We will get to those in a minute. That being said, we should talk a little about how these numbers should be interpreted.

It would be fair to point out that we did not include anyone currently in the Hall of Fame that played in the same period (Morgan, Sandberg, Carew). There were a few other players we could have included that we did not. The entire idea around the index is not to completely rank players with that information alone. Whitaker may be better than Grich or he might not. The same is true of Randolph. That’s not really the point. The point is that they are similar. The others are not. So, they are not in the same league as those guys. Now, we will look at some offensive numbers to determine why.

  OPS+ Rbaser SEC OW% wRC+ wOBA
Grich 125 4 .318 .609 129 .361
Lopes 107 83 .326 .573 111 .336
Garner 99 5 .240 .497 99 .317
White 85 1 .192 .414 84 .301
Herr 95 7 .219 .522 98 .317
Sax 95 23 .195 .486 97 .313

We could conceivably stop with OPS+ because most people understand that and we already see separation. However, that would ignore some other compelling numbers. We’ve used offensive winning percentage before and it bears repeating for those that have seen it before. We assume all nine hitters in the lineup produce exactly like the hitter in question. Grich and Lopes are both above average, but a majority of Lopes’ added production came with his legs. Both secondary average (SEC) and wOBA demonstrate the same thing. Too many people focus on batting average. Grich wasn’t special in that deparment, but he combined a good batting eye and some surprise power to produce good numbers in those categories. Lopes used speed to produce a good secondary average. The rest of the players fall further behind in all of the categories.

Remember, we are excluding Morgen, Randolph, Whitaker, and Sandberg. So, it might seem like we are stacking the deck in Grich’s favor, but we are also excluding a ton of guys that just didn’t last and never put up huge numbers. The point here is that Grich might not be called a brilliant hitter, but he was a good one and certainly a good one for a second baseman. Others were better (notably Morgan) and some were as good (Whitaker, Lopes) but the value comes in being better than most. So, now we should compare Grich to that same group defensively.

  Rfield DWAR TZ WS WS/1000
Grich 82 16.8 83 85.8 5.68
Lopes -27 1.7 -32 49.1 4.12
White 121 21.9 121 99.7 5.58
Garner 13 7.0 15 62.1 4.11
Herr -14 3.9 -13 51.8 4.36
Sax -61 -0.9 -61 54.4 3.71

So, again we see that Grich is not the best of the bunch. Frank White was a perennial Gold Glove performer, so it is no surprise that he should come out looking so good here, but it is a lot closer than people think. In many instances, we dismiss a fielder if he doesn’t win a ton of Gold Gloves. An above average fielder has value. Someone consistently above average has more value than you might think.

Yet, here is where the rubber meets the road and this is where traditionalists sometimes miss the mark. When we expand the second base list to include the likes of Joe Morgan, Lou Whitaker, Willie Randolph, Ryne Sandberg and even a guy like Steve Sax we find individual skills that some did better than Grich. There were players that hit for better average. There were players that ran the bases better. There were players that hit for more power. There were some that had more patience. Obviously, White and Randolph were superior fielders. There weren’t many that did it all as well as Grich. So, those that focus on individual categories miss the point.

  bWAR fWAR WS/5 Total
Bobby Grich 55.4 52.8 47.8 156.0

The numbers above represent Grich’s peak value. This is arguably where Grich shines. The biggest problem for the traditionalists is that he simply didn’t play long enough. It took some time for him to break into Earl Weaver’s lineup and the two sometimes did not get along. This gets us to a philosophical question. Should a player be penalized when those in charge of playing him didn’t fully understand his value? Weaver was a great manager, but sometimes even great managers make mistakes.

When he was at his best, Grich was more valuable than both Lou Whitaker and Willie Randolph. In fact, he was superior to Roberto Alomar from the previous article. So, he arguably has the best case for anyone on the outside looking in to get into the Hall of Fame. That might be for every position when things like PEDs are thrown into the conversation. Unfortunately, his name hardly ever gets mentioned outside of these circles. It’s really too bad.

  Career Peak Total
Bobby Grich 206.0 156.0 362.0

The index was never designed to be used to rank players. Grich’s final index score puts him squarely in the neighborhood of Ryne Sandberg, Roberto Alomar, Lou Whitaker, and Craig Biggio. Some have higher scores and some have lower scores but they are all fairly close. Grich belongs in that conversation. Where that conversation goes depends on who you are with at the sports bar, but he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

WAR (What is it good for?)

Occasionally, you see something or get involved In a discussion that changes your thinking. I started this site because it allows me to react to these things in real time. So, today we are taking a step back from the index briefly so we can address a debate that has been raging on the internet. Essentially, there has been a backlash against WAR. It has been going on for a lot longer than I’ve been making out, and I won’t be avoiding WAR for too long, but since I have the platform I’ll try to put my own spin on the subject.

Last time, we introduced total runs as an alternative number to use. It has its advantages. First, it’s easy to understand because the components are right there in front of you. With the components being there you can also manipulate them. We certainly will do that. Second, it accounts for longevity. That’s one of the hallmarks of the Hall of Fame. The longer you play the more likely you are to get in. Of course, there are some that debate the merits of longevity as it compares with quality. One compares players that compile numbers and others compare players with the average.

WAR and win shares attempts to marry the two by comparing players with a replacement level player. So, one can accrue value over time by being average or even below average. That becomes important when looking at a total runs metric. We will look at the findings for those in the Hall of Fame at second base along with four players that some people think definitely should be in the Hall of Fame. As promised, there will be no WAR today, but there will be two iterations of total runs. The first combines runs created, Rfield, and Rbaser. That’s a direct reenactment of the formula seen on billjamesonline.com

RC Rfield Rbaser Total
Rogers Hornsby 2045 54 -9 2080
Eddie Collins 1811 35 40 1886
Joe Morgan 1804 -48 80 1836
Craig Biggio 1832 -100 54 1786
Nap Lajoie 1690 83 -11 1762
Charlie Gehringer 1715 34 9 1758
Rod Carew 1595 14 26 1635
Frankie Frisch 1460 140 28 1628
Roberto Alomar 1575 -36 54 1593
Lou Whitaker 1395 77 32 1504
Jeff Kent 1497 -42 1 1456
Ryne Sandberg 1342 60 33 1435
Willie Randolph 1138 114 41 1293
Bobby Grich 1127 82 4 1213
Jackie Robinson 951 81 30 1062

Depending on your familiarity with these numbers, some of you are either soaking it in or yelling at the computer screen. First, I should mention that I don’t think Bill ever intended for his total runs metric to be used this way. His are always shown through the eyes of a single season. There is an important reason for that and it has to be mentioned before we move forward. Runs created are not normalized throughout history. Simply put, 100 runs created in 1968 is far different comparatively to 100 runs created in 1998. So, comparing a player like say Ryne Sandberg to Jeff Kent or Rogers Hornsby is nearly impossible using runs created.

This becomes problematic when trying to reach any conclusions from this particular formula. Looking at runs created ignores the quality in which these runs were created. In other words, while a Craig Biggio was second all-time at the position in runs created, we cannot assume he was the second-best hitter at the position. He produced the second most runs partially because he spent most of his career in a great hitter’s era and also because he played for a really long time. So, some would question his placement in the fourth spot in history and rightfully so.

When one considers WAR they would consider that at a certain point, Biggio was no longer providing value. Yes, he was creating runs, but if the Astros put someone like Chris Burke in his spot they might have gotten a better rate of runs created, baserunning runs, and fielding runs. So, in a table like above, Biggio was continuing to add value. In reality, he wasn’t. That’s where statistics like win shares or WAR are more descriptive than numbers like above.

Of course, we can make adjustments above by replacing runs created with baseball-reference’s Rbat statistic. It is the number of runs created above average. This does a number of things for us. First, it brings more fidelity because Rbat, Rfield, and Rbaser are all compared to the average player. Secondly, it helps solve the problem of different eras because each player is compared with the average player from that era. Finally, it doesn’t reward longevity nearly as much. You only get extra credit if you are actually good. It is interesting to see how the rankings with the same players differs when switching methodologies.

Rbat Rfield Rbaser Total
Rogers Hornsby 861 54 -9 906
Eddie Collins 629 35 40 704
Nap Lajoie 576 83 -11 648
Joe Morgan 450 -48 80 482
Rod Carew 407 14 26 447
Charlie Gehringer 379 34 9 422
Jackie Robinson 261 81 30 372
Bobby Grich 256 82 4 342
Frankie Frisch 159 140 28 327
Lou Whitaker 209 77 32 318
Ryne Sandberg 192 60 33 285
Willie Randolph 120 114 41 275
Roberto Alomar 242 -36 54 260
Jeff Kent 297 -42 1 256
Craig Biggio 257 -100 54 211

One of the joys of living with a scientist is that I get to see this kind of work poked fun at because of all of the rules we break. Most baseball statisticians are guilty of something called confirmation bias. It is defined as the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs. James himself demonstrated this when he asserted that any metric that did not have Ruth on top was inherently inaccurate. That may or may not be true, but it obviously doesn’t rigorously follow the scientific method.

I say that to point out that the above list probably matches most people’s beliefs about second basemen closer than the first one. That would tend to get most to say that the above method is more accurate. The problem is that average performers have value. According to the above chart they don’t. So, there is an inherent problem here. The first chart asserts that everyone has value. The second says you have to be above average to have value. What we need is something that marries the two.

This is where metrics like WAR and win shares come in. Craig Biggio is not the worst player in the group and he isn’t the fourth best player in the group. He is likely somewhere in between. The same is true of a player like Bobby Grich in reverse. Some credit has to be given for longevity, but we have to be careful about how much. If we learn anything it is that one set of numbers (no matter how carefully compiled) can tell us the whole story. That includes WAR.

What about: Jeff Kent

The nature of the what about series developed when we consider players that the public clamors for, but really aren’t quite Hall of Fame worthy. There are few second basemen that fit that description. The players that are passionately argued for are tend to actually belong in the Hall of Fame, so we move onto the borderline candidates. The one that seems to get the most attention is Jeff Kent.

That makes sense because up until Robinson Cano, Kent was the all-time leader for home runs as a second baseman. Obviously, leading in one of the major categories is compelling, but the key is whether he is a good enough all-around player. There are two reasons why players aren’t elected to the Hall of Fame. Either the BBWAA doesn’t think they were good enough or they simply didn’t like him. Either one could be true of Kent.

Kent and Barry Bonds were the two star players in San Francisco. It was said that Kent was the only player that could get 23 guys to unite behind Bonds. Since Bonds was notoriously prickly, that gives you an indication of how disliked Kent was. When he came to Houston, he reportedly told Jeff Bagwell that his goal was to leave baseball without any friends. Bagwell said, “so far, so good.” All of this is to say that Kent is a very unlikable guy by all accounts. So, maybe that spilled over to the Hall of Fame voting.

We start with the index and move on from there. The index doesn’t definitively tell us anything, but it does help eliminate players that obviously should not be considered. From there, we can take a look at the offensive and fielding numbers individually to see if we are missing anything the basic information is not providing.

Career Value 

  bWAR fWAR WS/5 Total
Jeff Kent 55.4 56.1 64.8 176.3

The career value doesn’t necessarily reveal whether he is worthy candidate one way or another. 300 tends to be the minimum score for Hall of Fame fitness. Obviously, we don’t know the peak value score, but the career value scores show he was good, but something is missing. We can’t know what that is until we break down the offensive and defensive numbers. Like with Craig Biggio in the last article, he had a significant advantage in win shares because of the consistent competitive nature of the teams he played on. Given that fact, we should probably look at the postseason numbers too.

Peak Value 

  bWAR fWAR WS/5 Total
Jeff Kent 42.8 43.8 47.0 133.6

There is nothing wrong with being a four win player, but when that is where you are when you are at your peak then there is something missing. If we add the career and peak value together we get 309.9 wins. That squarely puts Kent in the borderline category. As my fellow teachers tend to say, attitude can be the difference between and A and a B (or worse). It also means we need to start looking for tiebreakers. So, we start with the postseason and move on from there.

  PA AVG OBP SLG HR Runs RBI
Kent 189 .276 .340 .500 9 25 23

According to the postseason numbers, he was roughly the same hitter he was during the regular season. At first blush this would seem to give him no more of an advantage as if he had done nothing. However, if we assume that you are playing superior competition then your numbers should be worse theoretically. So, give a bit of a bonus point to Kent. His OPS was higher in the World Series than at any individual level of the playoffs. So, he got better as the chips were down.

WAR and win shares have their detractors and the Hall of Fame is way too important to boil down to just those metrics. Kent’s index scores get him in the ballpark and his postseason record is a credit as well. Based on those numbers alone he has an excellent argument but we should compare him to the bottom of the second base BBWAA group. First, we will look at their offensive numbers and then their defensive numbers. Finally, we will introduce a new metric that might shed some light on the issue.

Offensive Numbers 

  OPS+ Rbaser OW% wRC+ wOBA
Craig Biggio 112 54 .597 115 .352
Ryne Sandberg 114 33 .620 115 .351
Roberto Alomar 116 54 .600 118 .359
Jeff Kent 123 1 .604 123 .367

These numbers are very revealing. Overall, these players are fairly similar even though Kent has a superior OPS+. As we can see, the baserunning numbers are definitely off kilter. Often times it is the little things that makes a big difference. However, based on these numbers alone Kent definitely belongs in the Hall of Fame. Of course, the index scores say something else, so we should look at the fielding numbers to see what is going on.

Fielding Numbers 

  Rfield DWAR TZ DWS
Craig Biggio -100 -2.9 -33 86.0
Ryne Sandberg 60 13.5 60 89.0
Roberto Alomar -38 3.3 -3 95.5
Jeff Kent -42 -0.1 9 71.8

The defensive win shares tell a tale here. The tale they tell is that Kent did not enjoy the same length of a career as the others. In terms of quality he rates somewhere between Alomar and Biggio. In terms of reputation he was nowhere near any of those guys. He probably deserves better than what he has gotten. To give the perspective of time in addition to quality we can use a modified version of Bill James’ total runs. It includes most of the elements of WAR and win shares, but it is broken down and transparent. It includes runs created for the offensive element, Rfield for the fielding, and Rbaser for baserunning.

  RC Rfield Rbaser Total Runs
Craig Biggio 1832 -100 54 1786
Ryne Sandberg 1342 60 33 1435
Roberto Alomar 1575 -38 54 1591
Jeff Kent 1497 -42 1 1456

This is certainly interesting. These numbers put Kent somewhere in the neighborhood of Sandberg. Of course, the problem is that a run created in 2000 was not worth the same as a run created in 1985. So, maybe we should take these results with a grain of salt. Still, the results are what they are. He is in the neighborhood according to the index and he is in the neighborhood on the offensive numbers and he is in the neighborhood here.

He and Sandberg are similar in that they did not enjoy lengthy careers. You could say they are roughly equal offensively when all things are considered. Sandberg was obviously superior defensively. For some that is the difference. For others Kent is thrust over the threshold when you consider his postseason numbers. My personal take will probably change every time you ask me.

Biggio vs. Alomar (and Sandberg)

There are few players that are as polarizing as Craig Biggio. Obviously, this is through no fault of his own. Through most accounts, he played hard and he played the game right for 20 seasons. The reasons for his polarizing nature are based on how people perceive his career. Naturally, Astros fans think he is one of the all-time greats based on some impressive counting numbers. People on the east and west coast think he is one of the more overrated players in the history of the game.

Chief among these was professional talking head Mike Francesa. He steadfastly believed that Biggio shouldn’t get in and called him a glorified singles hitter. The numbers say something else as they almost always do. That is the defense against the “I know them when I see them” crowd. On top of that, systems like the index reveal the problems with the counting numbers that see below. Here are Biggio’s career ranks amongst primary second basemen in history.

Hits: 3060 (3rd)

2B: 668 (1st)

HR: 291 (4th)

TB: 4711 (2nd)

BB: 1160 (7th)

SB: 414 (6th)

RC: 1832 (2nd)

Much of the debate in Francesa’s case was a Craig Biggio vs. Roberto Alomar debate. Of course, the numbers here clearly point to Biggio as any Houston fan would attest, but they aren’t necessarily completely right either. Counting numbers can be deceiving. Add in runs and RBI and it becomes that much more of a stacked deck. It might lead you to believe he was a top five second basemen in history. As we will see, that’s a bit far fetched.

Career Value 

bWAR fWAR WS/5 Total
Craig Biggio 65.5 65.8 85.3 216.6
Ryne Sandberg 68.0 60.9 69.2 198.1
Roberto Alomar 67.1 63.6 67.0 197.7

The index is different from counting numbers because one must have value to accrue career value. Well duh. However, it is easy to miss how this differs from even sophisticated counting numbers like runs created. Would anyone in their right mind really suggest Biggio was the second best second sacker in history? The fact is that playing for 20 seasons (and most of them healthy seasons) has a way of helping you accrue those numbers. Unfortunately, his last few seasons saw him add very little if any real value.

Of course, Francesa was quick to point out that Biggio was not as good with the glove as Alomar. This is both true and misleading. Biggio was not a good defender by most metrics, but neither was Alomar. Alomar won Gold Gloves because Alomar made it into the highlights almost every night. Defensive metrics don’t add up Web Gems. They add up assists, putouts, double plays, and yes even errors. More advanced systems use video to determine how many plays a player should have made in comparison with the plays he did make. You don’t get extra credit for diving stops or acrobatic throws.

The index includes both offense and fielding. If we go only according to the index we would have put him in our last grouping with the likes of Charlie Gehringer, Rod Carew, and Frankie Frisch. As we will see, there are reasons not to include him in that group. However, he compares favorably to Sandberg and Alomar. Before we go to the offensive and fielding numbers we should probably look at peak value numbers.

Peak Value 

bWAR fWAR WS/5 Total
Ryne Sandberg 56.7 51.6 55.6 163.9
Craig Biggio 52.2 51.3 57.1 160.6
Roberto Alomar 50.4 47.6 48.9 146.9

One of the things we notice when looking at this data is Biggio’s significant advantage in win shares. Why does this happen? Simply put, the Astros were consistently competitive throughout Biggio’s career. Their only real down seasons came in 1991 and 2000. Otherwise, they were usually in the playoff hunt every year. Since win shares are based on wins that would give him that advantage.

Sandberg famously missed two seasons after a premature retirement that didn’t take. He tried to save his first marriage and it wouldn’t be saved. Give him even two mediocre seasons and he likely would be in Biggio territory in career value and might have surpassed his peak value. Of course, he isn’t the focus of this particular debate. Most of us know what Sandberg was and there isn’t a particular amount of debate there. Before we move onto the meaty part of the debate we will clean up the index with the totals.

Hall of Fame Index 

Career Peak Total
Craig Biggio 216.6 160.6 377.2
Ryne Sandberg 198.1 163.9 362.0
Roberto Alomar 197.7 146.9 344.4

The index scores put Biggio in the group that we mentioned last time, but he also hung out for a long time. We will ignore counting numbers because counting numbers tend to get skewed as players play for a long time. Biggio probably played two or three years past his usefulness in order to get to 3000 hits. The Astros obliged because of all he did for them and they got some marketing out of the deal. Let’s tear all that away and look at the facts.

Offensive Numbers 

OPS+ Rbaser OW% wRC+ wOBA
Biggio 112 54 .597 115 .352
Alomar 116 54 .600 118 .359
Sandberg 114 33 .620 115 .351

 Francesa argued that Biggio didn’t belong in the Hall of Fame period. The numbers above show that point to be ludicrous on its face. Alomar was better, but these are career numbers and were based on all 20 years for Biggio. While he added singles, doubles, and home runs down the stretch, he also added strikeouts and suffered through down OBP and SLG years. The Astrodome was already accounted for, so fellow Astros fans can rest assured Biggio wasn’t punished here.

Still, you can argue that Alomar was a better player based on these numbers. I have to wonder if we looked at the peak value numbers whether that would still be the case. Yet, when all things are considered if you admit one you have to admit them all based on this data alone. They are just too close. Since we can go back to the peak years, let’s check it out.

OPS+ Rbaser OW% wRC+ wOBA
Alomar 127 36 .634 128 .383
Biggio 125 32 .646 129 .373

We can start with the obvious comparison, but these numbers are proof of something else. When you look at these players you must look at them over the course of their careers and when they are at their best. Biggio held on longer, so his numbers took a bigger dive. Considering that each of them were better in some categories than others we can only conclude that they are very close if not equal when they were at their best. At least offensively that is.

Fielding Numbers

Rfield TZ DWAR DWS
Sandberg 60 60 13.5 89.0
Alomar -38 -3 3.3 95.5
Biggio -100 -33 -2.9 86.0

By all accounts, Alomar was not as brilliant a defender as people seem to remember. The numbers say something else. What’s more, he almost exclusively played at second base. Biggio played behind the dish for a few years, in left field for a few seasons, and in center field. He was not particularly good at any of them admittedly, but he might have been had he been given the opportunity to play their exclusively. This is likely wishful thinking though.

This brings us to the ultimate question. Who would you rather have on your team? This is an impossible question to ask definitively. If you want longevity it’s Biggio. If you want top end performance it might be Alomar, but that is closer than it appears. Alomar was the better defender, but Biggio offered more flexibility. The choice is yours.