Pop Quiz: Spot the HOFers by Standard Batting Ranks

60 Replies

Suppose we knew nothing of OPS+, WAR, or any other offensive measure invented since Babe Ruth. How do the traditional batting stats of Lou Whitaker and Alan Trammell compare to subsequent Hall of Famers at their positions, if each is ranked among his contemporaries?

Here are 16-year rankings against their contemporary middle infielders, for Trammell and Whitaker plus four Hall of Famers (or soon to be): Ryne Sandberg, Roberto Alomar, Barry Larkin and Craig Biggio. Names have been removed, and the listings are unordered. Can you spot the Hall of Famers?

First, the Triple Crown stats. Rate stats are based on the top 30 in PAs during the period. “Rank Pts.” is the sum of the rankings, so lower is better:

	BA	HR	RBI	Rank Pts.
Player A	3rd	6th	2nd	11
Player B	9th	5th	5th	19
Player C	5th	9th	4th	18
Player D	7th	2nd	2nd	11
Player E	4th	4th	3rd	11
Player F	8th	3rd	2nd	13

Now, those stats plus four more from the standard toolkit:

	BA	OBP	SLG	HR	RBI	Runs	XBH	Rank Pts.
Player A	3rd	6th	8th	6th	2nd	2nd	1st	28
Player B	9th	5th	8th	5th	5th	1st	1st	34
Player C	5th	7th	6th	9th	4th	3rd	4th	38
Player D	7th	13th	1st	2nd	2nd	2nd	2nd	29
Player E	4th	6th	4th	4th	3rd	3rd	4th	28
Player F	8th	4th	3rd	3rd	2nd	1st	2nd	23

Each player’s 16-year span was chosen to give him the best possible overall rankings among middle infielders. For Alomar and Sandberg, the spans represent all their years as regulars. For the others, I checked every possible span of 16 years and longer. Here are the spans, and the PA data for the player and for the rest of his pool; there’s very little difference in the competition’s playing time:

Trammell, 1978-93 (3rd with 8,555 PAs; next 10 avg. 7,956; all others avg. 6,303)
Whitaker, 1978-93 (2nd with 9,273 PAs; next 10 avg. 7,884; all others avg. 6,278)
Sandberg, 1982-97 (2nd with 9,276 PAs; next 10 avg. 7,884; all others avg. 6,408)
Larkin, 1987-2002 (5th with 8,237 PAs; next 10 avg. 7,858; all others avg. 6,336)
Alomar, 1988-2003 (1st with 10,210 PAs; next 10 avg. 7,705; all others avg. 6,322)
Biggio, 1989-2004 (1st with 10,560 PAs; next 10 avg. 7,783; all others avg. 6,451)

I left out stolen bases to preserve the mystery, not to dismiss the edge held by the others over Trammaker. The others had from 344 to 474 career SB, with success rates of 76-83%, compared to Trammell’s 236 (68%) and Whitaker’s 143 (66%). Ranks within their pool: Alomar 1st, Biggio and Sandberg 5th, Larkin 6th, Trammell 11th, and Whitaker 29th. Make as much or as little of that as you wish. My point is about batting stats.

Time for the answers. I’ll leave some blank space as a spoiler alert.

____________________

Answer: They’re listed alphabetically. Filling in the big table:

	BA	OBP	SLG	HR	RBI	Runs	XBH	Rank Pts.
Alomar, 1988-2003	3rd	6th	8th	6th	2nd	2nd	1st	28
Biggio, 1989-2004	9th	5th	8th	5th	5th	1st	1st	34
Larkin, 1987-2002	5th	7th	6th	9th	4th	3rd	4th	38
Sandberg, 1982-97	7th	13th	1st	2nd	2nd	2nd	2nd	29
Trammell, 1978-93	4th	6th	4th	4th	3rd	3rd	4th	28
Whitaker, 1978-93	8th	4th	3rd	3rd	2nd	1st	2nd	23

In the Triple Crown rankings, Trammell ties Alomar and Sandberg for the best ranking points, with Whitaker 4th. In the seven-stat rankings, Whitaker’s 1st, with Trammell and Alomar tied for 2nd.

I don’t claim that this is the best way to rate these players, nor that 16 years is the most appropriate span. All I mean to show is that the casual dismissal of Whitaker and Trammell from the Hall of Fame discussion was a gross oversight, even if only traditional stats are considered. You don’t need sabermetrics to compare apples to apples.

Maybe a 16-year test gives an unfair advantage to Trammell & Whitaker. So let’s do a 12-year span, each player’s best in offensive WAR. Same stats, same rules, but now the tables are sorted by best Rank Points.

12-Year Triple Crown ranks:

	BA	HR	RBI	Rank Pts.
Alomar, 1990-2001	2nd	5th	2nd	9
Trammell, 1980-91	3rd	4th	2nd	9
Sandberg, 1982-93	5th	2nd	2nd	9
Larkin, 1988-99	2nd	5th	3rd	10
Whitaker, 1982-93	10th	3rd	3rd	16
Biggio, 1991-2002	5th	7th	6th	18

All seven stats:

	BA	OBP	SLG	HR	RBI	Runs	XBH	Rank Pts.
Alomar, 1990-2001	2nd	4th	4th	5th	2nd	2nd	1st	20
Trammell, 1980-91	3rd	3rd	3rd	4th	2nd	4th	4th	23
Sandberg, 1982-93	5th	11th	1st	2nd	2nd	1st	2nd	24
Larkin, 1988-99	2nd	2nd	4th	5th	3rd	3rd	5th	24
Whitaker, 1982-93	10th	2nd	4th	3rd	3rd	3rd	3rd	28
Biggio, 1991-2002	5th	2nd	9th	7th	6th	1st	2nd	32

Does Trammell’s ranking surprise you? During his 12-year span above, the only MIFs he trails in any of those counting stats are Cal Ripken, Sandberg and Whitaker (and in SLG). If not for Ripken, I think Trammell would be in the Hall now. He would have gone down as the shortstop of the ’80s: From 1980-90, Tram led all SS in Runs, Hits, Doubles and OBP. Sans Cal, he would have swept HRs, RBI, Slugging, OPS, Total Bases and Extra-Base Hits. He was 2nd in BA to Julio Franco, and 3rd in SB. (Rate stats among top 25 in PAs.) He batted .300+ six times in those 11 years, while no other SS had more than two; his BA was 1st among qualified SS in five of those years, and 2nd the other.

Whitaker’s 12-year composite is weighed down by his 10th in BA — but he led all MIFs in walks for that span, making him 2nd in OBP. He trails only Ripken and Sandberg in any counting stats for his span. Lou’s HOF foil was Sandberg, whose 12-year best is precisely aligned. Absent Ryno, Lou would have led all 2Bs for 1982-93 in HR, RBI, Runs, Slugging, Total Bases, Extra-Base Hits and Times On Base.

Maybe the veterans committee will notice.

0 0 votes

Article Rating

60 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Doug

10 years ago

Interesting stuff, John. Trammell’s line says it all: nothing higher than 3rd and only one lower than 4th. Really good at everything but not outstanding in any one thing. Whitaker was good at something – scoring runs and driving them in. Except he wasn’t a slugger … because he never hit 30 HR and only hit 20 four times … and he wasn’t a speed guy … because he didn’t steal bases … so if he’s not a slugger and not a speed guy, look at the BA … oh, .276, that’s okay … but not for a HOFer. I’m… Read more »

Hartvig

10 years ago

Reply to Doug

“players had to look good through the lenses of different types of players (the power guy, the speed guy, the average guy, the strong fielder, or whatever” I think there’s still a lot of truth to that still today. I know when I first started following baseball Maury Wills was “the speed guy” for a few years and looked like a pretty sure bet for the HOF. But he started late and was soon replaced by Lou Brock in the roll. And in the late 60’s & early 70’s when you talked about Mays and Aaron and Robinson, Brock’s name… Read more »

Artie Z.

10 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

I agree (as does JAWS) that they are as good as the average HOFer, but the average HOFer includes a bunch of questionable players at the bottom. For second baseman, Whitaker is just a shade under the average, 56.3 JAWS to 57 for the average 2B (note – this only includes the players who were elected as players, so Miller Huggins isn’t included in the calculation – I was worried about that driving down the average but it’s not the case). However, Whitaker really isn’t the average 2B elected by BBWAA standards. From recollection and a little checking, Hornsby, Collins,… Read more »

Lawrence Azrin

10 years ago

Reply to Artie Z.

@7/Artie Z, Sorry for duplicating in my #8 what you said so much better here. I was still typing when you posted it. One thing I noticed looking at his B-R page is that he was still hitting fairly well when he retired – his OPS+ his last three years was: 133 (119 G), 122 (92 G), 129 (84 G) – career OPS+ of 116 Was he being platooned extensively/rested on day games after night games? It seems odd that he retired when he could still hit faily well. Another couple years might’ve gotten him over 2500 hits, and close… Read more »

Artie Z.

10 years ago

Reply to Lawrence Azrin

Well, I don’t know if I said it better, just more long-winded 😉 In 1995 Whitaker was pretty much used against RHP – 257 PAs against RHP, 28 against LHP. He looks to have missed the first two weeks of the season, and then played sporadically in September. In 1994 it was more of the same, 326 to 46, and I don’t see him missing any extended period of time as the Tigers only played 115 games due to the strike. In 1993 it was 414 to 62. Again, looks like a 15-day DL stint in July and he missed… Read more »

Lawrence Azrin

10 years ago

Reply to Doug

@4/Hartvig,

“…if you took your AVERAGE shortstop and second baseman already in the Hall of Fame Trammell and Whitaker are at least as good and possibly better.”

JAWS (the HOF evaluator on B-R) confirms that –

Whitaker: 56.3 // average for HOF 2Bmen: 57.0
Trammell: 57.5 // average for HOF SS: 54.7

Whitaker by JAWS ranks behind 9 HOF second baseman, but ahead of 10 (but only one was elected by the BBWAA – Alomar).

Trammell by JAWS ranks behind 8 HOF shortstops, but ahead of 15 (but only 5 were elected by the BBWAA).

Mike L

10 years ago

I think it’s interesting how our own voting seems to resemble HOF voting. Trammell got in with somewhat lighter competition among a much more Trammell-friendly crowd. Whittaker got his ten rounds of protection fairly early, he has his diehards, but year after year, there are always people better. Doug is on to something when he says, in effect, that neither was, through conventional lenses, exceptional at anything, just very very good. And then they were followed by several players who seemed to redefine what was possible for the position. In the 1950s and 60’s, pretty much the best you could… Read more »

mosc

10 years ago

I think Trammel’s got a legitimate shot of getting in the 2016 vote and Whitaker will be voted in by the veterans committee nearly as soon as he’s able.

If you asked me to give an over/under on that 2016 ballot for Trammel, I’d say 60%

Hartvig

10 years ago

Reply to mosc

I wish I could be as optimistic as you are. I’m just afraid the ballots are still going to be too crowded. I think he’ll get a little love because it’s his last shot but I just don’t think it will be enough to get in.

Michael Sullivan

10 years ago

Reply to mosc

I’ll take the under on that. Trammell’s vote went down this year, and there are another 2 slam dunks plus a deserving candidate and a couple borderliners coming on the ballot next year, then griffey and another couple borderliners in 2016. He’ll get a push, since it will be his last opportunity, but I think it will take a sustained campaign to get him over 50%. There are just so many other deserving guys to vote for right now. He’d have a much better chance if they’d elected who they should have last year, and if there weren’t innumerate idiots… Read more »

oneblankspace

10 years ago

Trammell’s biggest problem was Ripken… Ripken won the World Series in 1983 playing every inning of every game, and Trammmelll only won the Series the year the Cubs almost made it.

Lawrence Azrin

10 years ago

Reply to oneblankspace

@9/obs,

…Also that Alex Rodriguez and Derek Jeter AND Nomar Garciaparra AND Miguel Tejeda had established a new standard of offense excellence for shortstops, by the time Trammell first hit the HOF ballot in early 2002.

Of course their numbers were inflated quite a bit by the offensive explosion starting in 1994, but first impressions are quite hard to shake. Fred McGriff also suffers from this problem – most of his best years were pre-1994, so he also appears to come up short against Thome/ Delgado/ Helton/ Giambi/ Pujols etc… Trammell’s a better candidate than McGriff though.

Michael Sullivan

10 years ago

Reply to Lawrence Azrin

One thing to note is that Trammell in his prime was definitely considered a future HOFer. Things turned largely because of the raw numbers some shortstops were putting up in the late 90s. What the writers didn’t seem to notice is that those new guys were exceptional. ARod and Jeter are slam dunkers, and Garciaparra was on the same track before his injury. Also, the gap between them and Trammell wasn’t nearly as big as the raw numbers made it look. Trammell was a feared batter in his time, and that is highly unusual from the shortstop position, especially from… Read more »

BryanM

10 years ago

Nice piece , John , but I’m afraid we’re expelling liquid into the wind. I think now, and thought when they played, that Lou Whitaker was a better 2B than Ryne Sandberg. I know many accept a peak value argument, (JAWS) certainly does, and if you pick out only peak years, then you can make an argument that Sandberg was better. To me, it’s at least as valid to argue that when choosing between high peak and consistency, all else being equal, that consistency more often leads to winning baseball. The advanced stats that have been developed over the last… Read more »

bstar

10 years ago

Reply to BryanM

Bryan, Whitaker has 10 years of eligibility built up on the holdover ballot while Ryno’s cheese is hanging in the wind for I believe the ?third? straight year.

Judging by that, it seems to me this community favors Whitaker over Ryno.

Or maybe I’m misunderstanding your comment?

BryanM

10 years ago

Reply to bstar

My error — in editing I conflated two sentences and created a nonsense remark — it appears that we do indeed favor Lou. thanks for spotting. As a practical matter, with the stacked votes coming up , i don’t like either’s chances

Tubbs

10 years ago

There’s been a lot of articles pertaining to Whitaker and/or Trammell on this site and I hope to see that continue. In my opinion, both are worthy HOFers. However, after seeing the less than saber-friendly ballot the Screening Committee put together for the Expansion Era, I am worried Whitaker may not even make the ballot. Even if he does his fate may be similar to Ted Simmons’, who according to Exp Era voter Whitey Herzog, lost some support since voters questioned how HOF-worthy he could be if he fell off the BBWAA ballot after one year. (Simmons failed to draw… Read more »

Paul E

10 years ago

FWIW, in the BJHBA, Bill James has Sandberg ahead of Whitaker and Larkin ahead of Trammell. Alomar was about to hit the decline phase of his career. With James our inspiration and the father of all SABR-metric thought, I figured I’d give this a try: WAR/162 5.22 Larkin 5.07 Whitaker 5.06 Sandberg 4.97 Trammell 4.55 Alomar WAR-3 best seasons 23.4 Sandberg 21.5 Trammell 21.3 Alomar 20.3 Larkin 18.9 Whitaker WAR-5 consec. seasons 32.6 Sandberg 30.8 Trammell 28.1 Larkin 27.5 Alomar 25.3 Whitaker SB % Success Rate 83 % Larkin 80 % Alomar 76 % Sandberg 69 % Trammell 65 %… Read more »

Author

John Autin

10 years ago

Reply to Paul E

Sandberg had the higher peak and the better prime, for sure. I’m not sure that means I’d rather my team have his career than Whitaker’s. Consider these splits: First 11 years as a regular: — Sandberg 59.5 WAR, Whitaker 46.2 WAR … Sandberg +13.3 WAR — Sandberg 35.5 WAA, Whitaker 25.7 WAA … Sandberg +9.8 WAA (I didn’t bother projecting Whitaker’s 1981 to a full season.) Next 5 years as a regular: — Sandberg 8.2 WAR, Whitaker 24.6 WAR … Whitaker +16.4 WAR — Sandberg 2.7 WAA, Whitaker 15.1 WAA … Whitaker +12.4 WAA (Sandberg didn’t play in ’95, but… Read more »

mosc

10 years ago

Sandberg v whitaker

Errors:
109 v 189
Steals:
344 v 143
walks:
761 v 1197
putouts
3807 v 4771

I think those are the main two differentiators voters see and shouldn’t followed by the two they should but don’t.

BryanM

10 years ago

Reply to mosc

Possibly, mosc — the career stats of the two are otherwise pretty similar, My impression is that fielding reputation comes from great plays rather than either errors or RF – but you’re sure right about walks. Both players were top-of-order, where walks have extra value

tag

10 years ago

I don’t like the Hall of Fame and don’t give it much thought, but if the concept is to mean anything, I think it should mean that the players being inducted are truly superior, and not just superior in their consistency. What that means to me is that they have to show they are capable of leading (a quaint, unfashionable concept, I know) their teams to division titles. (The postseason is pretty much a crapshoot in my book.) Over the course of a season they should stand out as the best player on their team (or, if there is a… Read more »

Author

John Autin

10 years ago

Reply to tag

tag, I respect your view of what a HOFer should be. But I think part of your definition — capable of leading a team to a division title — falls apart on close inspection. No baseball player, no matter how great, can do that without several other above-average players. So, unless you define the level of those secondary contributors, you can’t define the requisite level of the top player. Is it 7 WAR? I’d venture that a majority of division winners had no 7-WAR player. The last 18 division winners totaled seven 7-WAR players. Last year’s champion Red Sox got… Read more »

Voomo Zanzibar

10 years ago

Reply to John Autin

JA,

This is the pitcher’s follow-up to the WAR analysis you did a few weeks ago…

I’ve been wondering,
if you had to choose when building a 5-man rotation,
and you could have a staff that gave you 20 WAR,
would you choose 5 pitchers with

7 WAR
7
2
2
2

4
4
4
4
4

Two aces and three league average pitchers,
or five guys who will give you 2 WAA with consistency?

Which equates to more wins?
Or is it a toss up?

(not taking potential post-season matchups
into consideration at all)

tag

10 years ago

Reply to John Autin

John, I’m curious. What’s considered above-average for a position player in WAR? And for a pitcher for that matter? I think 2 WAR is expected of a starter, correct? Is that considered average? The 1984 Cubs got 2.1 WAR from Jody Davis, 3.7 from Bull Durham, -1 from Bowa, 1.6 from Cey, 3.2 from Sarge, 3.1 from Dernier and 0.5 from Moreland among the everyday starters. Durham is definitely above-average, but Sarge and Dernier not so much, and the others definitely not. Bowa and Moreland are well below average. None of the pitchers accounted for 4 WAR, but Sutcliffe was… Read more »

Author

John Autin

10 years ago

Reply to tag

tag, the typical WAR of a “starter” varies by league, by year, and by where you set the cutoff for playing time.

FWIW, I took the NL’s top 96 in total PAs for 1984-85 — an average of 8 per team, with a cutoff of 600+ PAs:

— Avg. 2.9 WAR per 650 PAs
— Avg. 2.8 WAR per 162 G
— Median 1.9 WAR per year

no statistician but

10 years ago

Reply to tag

tag: My thinking runs parallel to yours in a way. I’ve given up on the HOF because, if they ever did, the voters for many years haven’t sent a clear message about what various possible criteria make for a HOFer; because the voting system is so severely flawed that it produces idiocy, etc. Where I disagree with your reasoning is where I disagree with all “small Hall” arguments: that there is a cut-off of one kind or another, or a narrow set of criteria, or a clear appearance to the true HOFer that shines like a holy aura, and only… Read more »

bstar

10 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

Actually, Sandy Koufax wouldn’t make tag’s definition of a Hall-caliber player either because he doesn’t fit the 55 WAR in 10 years criterion.

no statistician but

10 years ago

Reply to bstar

Picked any good nits lately, bstar?

tag

10 years ago

Reply to no statistician but

nsb, I don’t think there is any holy aura either. There are always only made-up criteria and judgments. I have mine; you have yours. The current Hall of Fame has none :-). Just to clarify, as I said below to John, I’m not defending Ryne Sandberg’s bona fides for being in the real HoF, which I couldn’t care less about, nor my own HoF, which doesn’t exist and never will. All I said is that I think Ryno is superior to Sweet Lou, and I think he demonstrated championship caliber play in five seasons, and in fact lifted otherwise mediocre… Read more »

Author

John Autin

10 years ago

Reply to tag

In the last 5 years, 19 teams won 95 games or more. — 8 of 19 had a 7-WAR player. (One team had two.) — 6 of 19 had no player with 6+ WAR. — Average of teams’ #1 in WAR/pos was 6.8 WAR. Here are those teams and their top position players, by WAR (listing top 2 for each team and any others with 5+ WAR): 2009 Yankees, 103 wins — Jeter 6.6, Teixeira 5.3 2011 Phillies, 102 wins — Utley 5.4 WAR, Victorino 3.7 WAR 2012 Nationals, 98 wins — Harper 5.2, LaRoche 4.2 2009 Angels, 97 wins… Read more »

tag

10 years ago

Reply to John Autin

John, I think you’re misreading (or I’m miswriting, entirely possible) what I meant. I used phrases like “around 35 WAR in five seasons” and “something like 55 in 10” for a reason. I’d never rest a case for greatness on a single number like WAR, but I think it’s useful for focusing thought. And though I’ve never examined it in detail, I would guess that league WAR totals fluctuate from year to year. In some seasons, 6.2 or whatever WAR might constitute a championship-caliber season; other seasons might require more. Context always matters. Even so, individual seasons are not the… Read more »

Author

John Autin

10 years ago

Reply to tag

tag, re: “best player on team” angle — The fact is that during Trammell & Whitaker’s best 11-year run (1981-91), one of them led the team in WAR/pos in 10 of 11 years. In 4 of 11 years, they ranked #1-2. I’m not sure if that rebuts your point or confirms it. But consider two more facts: (1) From 1981-91, only Toronto won more games than Detroit. (2) In those years, the count of Tigers’ 5-WAR/pos seasons reads: — Trammell 7 — Whitaker 5 — All others combined, 9 Trammell & Whitaker had 7 of Detroit’s top 8 WAR seasons… Read more »

tag

10 years ago

Reply to John Autin

John, honestly, I hope both are elected for your sake. You’ve presented the best case imaginable for both of them, and they were excellent players. I kinda feel bad for expressing my position, but I just don’t consider them great.

Those Detroit teams were defined to me by having lots of very good players: Trammell and Whitaker, obviously, along with Parrish, Chet, Gibby, Morris, Willie Hernandez, and later Fielder and Tettleton. Plus I loved Senor Smoke and Barbero Garbey.

Author

John Autin

10 years ago

Reply to tag

tag, I reiterate that I respect your positions, both on the very existence of a HOF in this form, and on whether Trammell & Whitaker meet the de facto criteria for election. I hope it’s clear that my point in these posts is only partly to advocate for them. I’m also using them to explore the general idea that high-peak stars have more impact on pennant races. And while I’m less sold on that idea than most people, my position is evolving, and I’m open to seeing evidence of a peak/pennant link. It could certainly be argued that the Tigers… Read more »

tag

10 years ago

Reply to John Autin

I agree with you that it’s an interesting subject, and well worth investigation. I wrote again above about the Cub titles with Sandberg, not because I especially like him but because I see a real peak/pennant link with him, and I saw him/the team play. I didn’t know Gibby’s great year with the Dodgers also exhibited it.

Hartvig

10 years ago

Reply to tag

“but if the concept is to mean anything, I think it should mean that the players being inducted are truly superior, and not just superior in their consistency” I do respect the opinions of people who advocate for a small Hall and I understand where they are coming from. And IF that was how the Hall of Fame was construed, then I could (almost) accept the fact that the voters don’t see Alan Trammell as a Hall of Famer. It would mean a Hall Of Fame with less than 100 players in it however. The problem, of course, is that… Read more »

bstar

10 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

“I don’t see how it’s fair to hold current players to standards higher than the average Hall of Famer had to meet.” Even holding current players to a standard where they must be equal to an average Hall of Famer at their position presents problems. If you only admit those at or above the average line, the average will continue to rise over time and the standard will get higher and higher because there’s no below-average players making it to offset those who far exceed the average. The Hall will get more and more exclusionary over time. This is exactly… Read more »

Tubbs

10 years ago

Reply to bstar

Great comments by bstar and that’s why I’m not a fan of JAWS. I enjoy Jay Jaffe’s writing, I just don’t agree with the quick and dirty use of JAWS to say someone’s not a HOFer. Even some obvious HOFers barely cross their positions’ JAWS line. I feel like JAWS & the way many voters use it hurts the borderline guys (though not necessarily Whitaker & Trammell). I prefer having a line that I consider HOF/not quite HOF rather than a median degree like JAWS. For example, Graig Nettles & Reggie Smith are just below my HOF-line while Minnie Minoso… Read more »

bstar

10 years ago

Reply to Tubbs

Agreed fully, Tubbs. I also think a standard slightly below average is a better way to go, but even then we’re leaving out all the players below that line and unfortunately the same effect will be seen, although to a lesser degree.

So **maybe** you and I are actually advocating for a set line in the sand that never moves instead of one that gradually goes up over time.

Maybe. Just like career WAR, though, this should probably just be the starting point for the discussion and not the final say.

Tubbs

10 years ago

Reply to Tubbs

Well said, bstar.

Artie Z.

10 years ago

Reply to bstar

Median would probably be better than average, just to remove the influence of the outliers. Except they haven’t been electing only players above the average. Recent (meaning guys I saw play in the 80s and 90s) BBWAA inductees below “average” JAWS score for their positions: C – none below average 1B – Murray (just a slight tick below average, he is the 9th highest rated of 18 HOF 1B) and Tony Perez (26th in JAWS overall) 2B – Alomar (just a tick below average, he is the median HOF 2B) 3B – none below average SS- none below average (there… Read more »

Hartvig

10 years ago

Reply to Artie Z.

“Median would probably be better than average, just to remove the influence of the outliers. ?

And you’re right, of course. I sometimes forget this site has so many math wizards and should have been more judicious in my choice of words, since median is what I was getting at more than average since, as you pointed out, some positions are notoriously top heavy.

Artie Z.

10 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

I forgot to add this before:

It’s easy to fix mistakes,
Create your own Circle of Greats!

I’m guessing George Kelly, George Kell, Travis Jackson, Chick Hafey, Rube Marquard, Jesse Haines, Ross Youngs, and Jim Bottomley (did I miss anyone?) won’t make it in the COG, though if we see someone with the ID “The Ghost of Frankie Frisch” start voting in the rounds when those players are eligible I might be a little suspicious.

David Horwich

10 years ago

Reply to Artie Z.

Lloyd Waner, Freddie Lindstrom, Ray Schalk, Rick Ferrell…I doubt Pie Traynor is going to do too well…Hack Wilson. Not an exhaustive list.

Hartvig

10 years ago

Reply to tag

tag- I feel I should apologize for taking your comment off on a bit of a tangent. I do understand that there’s a difference between someone who is consistently very good- like Whitaker or Eddie Murray or Willie Randolph (although I would disagree about classifying Trammell like that)- for a long period of time and someone who is really great but only for a limited period of time (Koufax, Sisler, Dean) and I can see your point about a player needing to reach a certain level of “greatness” to belong in the Hall. I’m a big Hall guy so I… Read more »

tag

10 years ago

Reply to Hartvig

Hartvig,

No need to apologize. Tangents are what make this place great, in fact.

I’m actually a non-Hall guy, and think baseball would be better served by just having a great museum and forgetting the about enshrining individuals. It’s just when I start thinking about “greatness,” I tend to narrow things down. To my mind, you have to really stand out to warrant the term.

BryanM

10 years ago

Reply to tag

Tag – I guess some folks like fish and some folks like pork chops — but to me , consistency trumps Peak every time in terms of actual baseball value; we can agree to differ, but just to revert to the Whitaker-Sandberg comparison, Sandberg played on teams with winning records precisely 3 times in a 16 year record with the Cubs — he was a fine second baseman , and I’m glad for him that he’s in the HoF , but I don’t think he was the equal of Lou Whitaker. You of course are free to differ- but I… Read more »

tag

10 years ago

Reply to BryanM

BryanM, Gee, Ryno played on bad Cub teams. Ya think? Forgive the snark and lemme just say it’s the fact that the Cubs won two titles during his career that is amazing. The Cubs, as we all know, have never won consistently. It generally takes superhuman heroics, whether legit or steroid aided, for them to get anywhere near a title. Also, it’s not whether a team actually wins titles that I judge a player’s greatness by. It’s a whole lot more complicated than that. At root though, it’s whether that player’s performance could form the basis of, i.e. he could… Read more »

BryanM

10 years ago

Reply to tag

OK no problem with the snark – and I may finally be understanding your point , on rereading your @40 above — If i do, sticking with the position, Matt Carpenter had one such season for the Cards last year, whether he turns out to be great is of course for the future to decide. Lou had 3 , maybe 4 such seasons for the tigers , over the course of a long career – whether that makes him subjectively “great” of course will be different for different people. I’m with you in not caring about the HoF, and I… Read more »

tag

10 years ago

Reply to BryanM

Yes, I consider superior or championship-caliber players to be ones who can drag along a bunch of average/above-average players to a title. There are not a whole lot of them in the history of the game. They often in fact haven’t won titles because they can only drag along so much mediocrity so far. Sometimes they’re paired with a fellow superior player or several above-average players, in which case they often win a title. Sometimes they take the field with only a few barely above-average players and much mediocrity (or worse), and then they rarely if ever win a title.… Read more »

bstar

10 years ago

This is a big tangent but I’ve got to get it off my chest. tag, sorry about this but I don’t think your characterization of the 1984 Cubs as a one-man show is that accurate. First off, that team won 96 games. You can’t be a one-man show and win 96. Let me point out some of the contributors to that team: -Leadoff man Bob Dernier was basically a 0-1 WAR player for his career, pretty much a replacement-level guy. But in ’84, he put up a 3-WAR season. I remember Harry Caray talking about how good Dernier was leading… Read more »

tag

10 years ago

Reply to bstar

Well, Ryno had more than double the WAR of any other player. According to John, the average WAR of starting everyday players for 1984-85 — an average of 8 per team, with a cutoff of 600+ PAs – was 2.9 WAR per 650 PAs / 2.8 WAR per 162 G. So who beyond Durham of the everyday players was really above average? From the stats I’ve seen, Eck put up 2.5 WAR. The three top starters indeed all recorded over 3 WAR, as I mentioned above, but nobody put up 4. So the Cubs had three starters above average, but… Read more »

bstar

10 years ago

Reply to tag

Dennis Eckersley had 3.9 WAR, not 2.5, in 160 innings and Rick Sutcliffe had 3.9 in 150. You’re judging these guys as if they played an entire season. Both came over from the AL before the break. But if you want a true measure of how effective they were, use a rate stat. It looks like 250 innings was about the average for a pitcher who made all his starts in the NL in ’84. Prorating their stats to a full season, both of these guys would have been over 6 WAR. If Sutcliffe wasn’t the ace of the National… Read more »

tag

10 years ago

Reply to bstar

Boy, I don’t know how I dig myself these holes. I’m not even that big a fan of Sandberg. But bstar, I think my argument was a lot subtler than you’re making it out to be. I was actually trying to confine my argument to the everyday Cub regulars in relation to Sandberg’s contribution. What I wrote to John was: “His 8.5 WAR lifts this mediocre bunch with consistent, if hardly awesome, pitching to a title and within a game of facing [John’s] Tigers.” You’re right on the pitching figures and maybe the moundsmen edge closer to awesome than I… Read more »

tag

10 years ago

Reply to tag

The paragraph on the pitching got screwed up a bit. Here’s what I wanted to say: You’re right on the pitching figures and maybe the moundsmen edge a little closer to awesome than I gave them credit for. They definitely are above average, with Sutcliffe and Eck well above for the time they pitched. That’s the thing, though. I did not forget that they came over from the AL and didn’t mean to knock them personally. But for the purposes of what Sandberg played with, they were 4 WAR pitchers blended with whoever the Cubs trotted out before they arrived.… Read more »

jeff hill

10 years ago

Chase Utley 5yr peak Vs. Jeff Kent 9 yr peak years… 754 games/151 avg vs. 1,324 games/147 avg 3,374 PA’s/675 avg vs. 5,678 PA’s/633 avg 2,909 AB/582 avg vs. 5,032 AB/559 avg 553 runs/111 avg vs. 843 runs/94 avg 875 hits/175 avg vs. 1,487 hits/165 avg 196 2B/39 avg vs. 356 2B/40 avg 23 3B/4.6 avg vs. 31 3B/3.4 avg 146 HR/29 avg vs. 253 HR/28 avg 507 RBI/101 avg vs. 994 RBI/110 avg .300/.387/.534 vs. .295/.365/.523 77 SB/15 avg vs. 77 SB/13 avg 334 BB/67 avg vs. 524 BB/58 avg 544 K’s/109 avg. 925 K’s/103 avg 135OPS+ vs. 132OPS+… Read more »

BryanM

10 years ago

tag@50 – again – trying to agree where we can , I think the BBWAA is pretty good at identifying the best players, with some obvious errors, but what committee doesn’t make errors? With the best of intentions , however, I cannot find any content in your definition of superior or championship-caliber . You say @43 that the players team doesn’t have to win to qualify – so I’m left wondering how good is good enough? Zobrist (2011,2009? ), Trout (last 2 years) – of course neither of these guys has put together championship caliber careers yet, but they can… Read more »

tag

10 years ago

Reply to BryanM

Superior or championship-caliber seasons are those, measured in WAR, that compensate for a lot of mediocrity by a player’s teammates. They are around 7 WAR and above but with many caveats, and WAR just starts the discussion. Maybe I should have said MVP-caliber, though I didn’t want to cloud the issue with MVP talk.

BryanM

10 years ago

Others have probably lost interest in the Peak vs Consistency issue by now , although it has given this thread some life as we have used some individual players as poster children for the argument . Basically , though we have been using individual data points to argue positions , while the issue can only be advanced by someone with some serious statistical chops. Whether my intuition that consistency leads to championships or that of some others that high peak is more important is true can only be resolved by some serious data analysis. To illustrate if we assembled two… Read more »