![]() |
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
December 22, 2008
BASEBALL: The Middle Infielders Revisited
After I did my Hardball Times column on the post-1920 middle infielders in the Hall of Fame conversation, including the recently elected Joe Gordon - and you should go back and read the column if you expect to make sense of this post - I figured I'd like to check how the rough offensive "Rate" metric I was using stacks up to more sophisticated measurements that incorporate defense. With that in mind, I've pulled together in chart form for the long- and short-prime middle infielders a ranking by Win Shares per 162 team games for their prime years. To add to the picture I list their WS/162 for the non-prime seasons of their careers, which of course are highly variable (some guys get charged with "seasons" for a brief cup of coffee, like Alex Rodriguez in 1994 and 1995 or Rogers Hornsby spending the last 6 years of his career as a manager and part-time pinch hitter). Anyway, as you will see, the WS rankings match up fairly well with mine but naturally diverge in some cases, most obviously guys like Ozzie Smith who had a lot of defensive value.
As you can see, Frisch, Cronin, Smith and Larkin - as befits their reputations - all go up the list by this measure, while Lazzeri, Whitaker, Bell and Durham go down (you will note, amusingly, that this puts Whitaker and Trammell together). Two small data inconsistencies with the article, which was written after the 2006 season. One, I added Derek Jeter's 2007 (but not 2008) to complete his prime years; two, I adjusted Miguel Tejada's age.
As discussed in the article, Carew and Yount - like A-Rod - have other seasons that are "prime" but not as middle infielders (I looked at Carew's broader prime in the article on the tablesetters). Posted by Baseball Crank at 9:29 AM
|
Baseball 2008 |
Baseball Studies
| Comments (5)
| TrackBack (0)
Comments
It is interesting to see Trammell and Whitaker listed just above Ozzie Smith. Smith strolled into the HoF on his first ballot with around 95% of the vote. Whitaker fell off the ballot after one look and Trammell just doesn't seem to get any traction with the voters. I'm not from Detroit, but I can understand their fan's concern here (I don't see Jack Morris as a HoF'r but that's another story). Smith was a great defensive player who did a cute backflip. Trammell and Whitaker were both very good with the glove as well as being better than the norm offensively for their position. Was Smith that much better than those players with the glove to account for the disparity in the voting? I don't see it. Posted by: LargeBill at December 23, 2008 2:23 PMBill, the best answer I can give you about Ozzie is from Herzog. He knew he had to get rid of Templeton, and he also knew he had to improve his pitching staff. So he did both (his words). He cut a half run off the ERA by getting Ozzie. Plus he made a journeyman John Tudor, who specialized in giving up ground ball singles up the middle, an ace. Because all of a sudden, those singles became outs. Lots of them. And the Cards won big in the 80s. I never saw Marion, but I did see Belanger (now that left Oriole side was some infield), Aparacio and Vizguel. I do think Ozzie Smith was the best I ever saw. He was a linchpin in a team that won (I think) 3 pennants and a ring--just by memory, not looking it up now. So yes, to me a first ballot for him is just. And I would vote for Morris in the Hall. Posted by: Daryl Rosenblatt at December 23, 2008 4:56 PMYou really have to put your head in the sand to not consider Jeff Kent a hall of famer. Posted by: seth soothsayer at December 24, 2008 6:22 PMOzzie simply feels like an HOFer. He has the stats, rep, highlight reels and team accomplishments. Does Sweet Lou have that feel? Not really. Nice player but he doesn't have that quality that Ozzie does. Trammel is closer but is likely just on the outside looking in. Posted by: jim at December 24, 2008 8:19 PMMerry Christmas. Posted by: dave at December 25, 2008 1:10 PM
|