Introduction
The main themes in this article are:
- Does possessing enough "good" translate into "great"?
- Seasons matter
The content is roughly two-thirds about Lou Whitaker and about one-third on the rest of the 2020 Modern Era ballot (and particularly Dave Parker).
Sweet Lou
For all the Lou Whitaker fans out there, I think you’re going to be really happy in the near future. Maybe not with my article….but (I believe) you’ll be happy with the results of the 2020 Modern Era ballot.
I think this is the year that Whitaker gets in.
The signs are there. He’s been a bit of a cause célèbre for several years now, and my impression is that his support has been growing. Nearly 20 years after his brief, one-year appearance on the BBWAA ballot, he is finally up for consideration again. And, probably most importantly, I think the induction of Alan Trammell a couple of years ago was a significant hurdle. Trammell and Whitaker are so closely linked in the public consciousness as a keystone duo and as very similar players that the thought of one in the Hall without the other seems wrong to so many. I think this year Whitaker will join his partner in Cooperstown.
And, if that occurs, I’ll be happy for Whitaker. And I’ll be glad that the topic will be behind us. However, I have to say Whitaker is not my idea of a Hall of Fame player.
A good player? For sure.
A very good player? Yes.
Underrated during his career? Yep.
But a Hall of Famer? In my opinion, no.
At best, I would consider him a borderline candidate, along with dozens of others. I won’t be upset if (when?) he’s inducted. I just happen to think he is below the line. Let me put it another way….he’s below my line.
What exactly are the arguments in favor of Whitaker? There are a few key ones that are commonly put forth:
- A long career (one of the longest ever at second base)
- Whitaker and Trammell combined to form the longest keystone partnership ever
- A high career rWAR (75)
- A high JAWS ranking (13th at second base)
- A legitimate claim as the best AL second baseman of his era (and maybe the best in both leagues)
- Good all-around/well-rounded skill set
I think that’s a pretty good starting point. And he has some decent bullet points on his Hall of Fame résumé.
Walking through those one at a time…
Long Career at Second Base
Whitaker is 4th all-time in defensive games at 2B, behind Hall of Famers Eddie Collins, Joe Morgan, and Roberto Alomar. The rest of the top 10 is made up of 3 other Hall of Famers (Nellie Fox, Charlie Gehringer, Bid McPhee), a possible future Hall of Famer (Robinson Cano, although his PED violation puts a cloud over that), and 2 of Whitaker’s contemporaries from the ‘70’s-‘90’s (Willie Randolph and Frank White).
Of course, a long career at a key defensive position in and of itself isn’t enough. Omar Vizquel is #1 in career games played at shortstop, and Jimmy Rollins, Larry Bowa, and Dave Concepcion are all top 10. Steve Finley and Willie Davis are 3rd and 4th, respectively, in defensive games played in center field, while Doc Cramer and Brett Butler are 7th and 8th. Top 10 at catcher include Bob Boone, Jason Kendall, Tony Pena, Brad Ausmus, A.J. Pierzynski, and Jim Sundberg.
A long career at a key defensive position is a valid point, but it’s just one point. Still, it’s a start.
Lou and Alan
As to the long partnership and statistical similarity with Trammell, I’ll admit it’s a noteworthy thing, but I frankly don’t think it should count for all that much in the scheme of things. For one thing, the "if one then the other" logic is a position that we’ve certainly been warned about (by Bill James himself), because that position, by itself, is never-ending and tends to create a downward spiral effect. One person’s entry is not (or shouldn’t be) the primary gateway for another’s. Again, it can be a consideration, but I don’t see that it should carry much weight.
After all, Trammell’s entry was a bit of application of the same logic, as I recall that many people used the election of Barry Larkin a few years earlier as justification for including Trammell, citing the similarity in their careers. The argument was "how can you have Larkin in but not Trammell?", even though you can come up with good reasons to distinguish them. Even though Trammell didn’t get elected by the BBWAA, he did manage to grow his support over time from a low of 13% to almost 41% by the end of his time on the ballot, and I think it gave him a nice little springboard to be inducted by the Veterans Committee in 2018.
However, I’m not a big fan of that logic. I don’t particularly like basing the induction of one person simply because of a tight connection to another. Each candidate should be evaluated on his own individual merits.
And, for the record, I’m not a big supporter of Trammell’s induction either. I don’t think he’s a bad selection, but, like Whitaker, I think he was a borderline candidate at best.
Cumulative Quantitative Value
Perhaps the loudest argument you hear in favor of Whitaker is his impressive career rWAR. You don’t see many eligible players with rWAR’s of 70 or more who aren’t in the Hall, and a good chunk of those have other issues (such as a steroid cloud). Yet, this is probably also the biggest bone I have to pick.
Now, to start with, anyone who has read my articles knows that I am definitely not a WAR-basher. I’m a fan of it, I like it very much, and I use the hell out of it in various things that I research, including several things in this article. I think it’s a terrific tool for summarizing both individual seasons and groups of seasons into a single number to help analyze various things.
However….I don’t let it dictate who I think should be in the Hall of Fame. That’s a different beast, and requires a different thought process. You can’t just say "Wow-look at that rWAR of 75! Impressive! You gotta put him in!" It doesn’t work that way, or at least it shouldn’t.
One of my favorite old movies is "Inherit the Wind" (based on the 1920’s Scopes "Monkey" trial), which I know I already referenced once in an article a couple of years ago. One of the famous quotes provided by Spencer Tracy’s character during the trial as various points and counterpoints are being made is that "The Bible is a book. It's a good book. But it is not the only book."
Well, rWAR is just a number. It’s a good number. But it’s not the only number. It’s something to consider, but it doesn’t settle an argument or cement someone’s place in the Hall of Fame. Even though it does a good job of approximating value and summarizes it into a single, bite-sized figure, it can’t be the sole reason for inducting someone into the Hall of Fame. It’s one piece of information….especially when it’s expressed as a career number.
The real issue I have is that Whitaker’s career rWAR results from the accumulation of a lot of good years and, perhaps more importantly, the notable lack of bad ones. He really didn’t have any truly bad seasons. And that’s certainly valuable. However – did he really have any great ones? What was Whitaker’s signature season? Does anything really stand out as memorable?
See, a season is not just something in the abstract, and it’s not just a slice of a player’s career. Each season, in isolation, means something. The essence of sports is that each season starts anew with the pursuit of a championship. That’s why they’re out there, and that’s why they start from scratch each season. That’s what each team is striving for. What did Whitaker do towards those annual goals? He was good. He was solid. He was consistent. It’s nice to have those types of players around on your team. They’re dependable. They’re reliable. But, is many years of good, dependable play really a primary Hall of Fame characteristic? Are we looking for the reliable ones? Or are we looking for greatness?
One of the big strikes against Whitaker, in my opinion, is the lack of MVP support. As you probably know, he only got one mention in his entire career (an 8th place finish in 1983). That’s it. And I think that’s pretty damning. Yes, you can point out that you think he should have gotten more support, that he was very underrated, and that the MVP voting is far from a perfect measure of recognizing a player’s contributions. Understood. But, I do think the collective information gleaned from the observations of writers who vote in the moment after each season is completed should carry a lot of weight in assessing a player’s career, and has to be given a great deal of consideration, even if you don’t always agree with it.
And, besides, I don’t know that the MVP voters had it all that wrong. Let’s look at it this way. Let’s say you’re a big fan of rWAR when it comes to Whitaker’s career, and let’s assume that you do think that it’s a good piece of information to leverage in support of his case. OK. Let’s accept that. So, what does rWAR have to say about Whitaker’s individual seasons? How many American League top-10 rWAR seasons did he actually have? Two. That’s it. Two. He was 6th in 1983, and 9th in 1991. So, if you put any weight on rWAR for a career, then I think you also have to take a look at it in the context of individual seasons, and if you do, I think you’d have to say that the voters actually had him pegged pretty accurately. He didn’t impact individual seasons in a significant way. He provided good, consistent value, but he didn’t exactly stand out as a great player in any season.
And seasons matter.
Whitaker simply didn’t have great seasons. He had A LOT of good ones. A boatload of them. If that says Hall of Famer to you, I can respect your opinion. But, I don’t agree with it. I think a Hall of Famer should have some years during his career when he elevates and makes his mark on a season in pursuit of a championship. Whitaker simply doesn’t have those, in my opinion.
And here’s another thought. The Tigers in Whitaker’s (and Trammell’s) career, spanning nearly 2 decades, made the playoffs only 2 times. That’s it. The Tigers had the great season in 1984 when it all came together, and they also made the playoffs in 1987. In those 2 years, Whitaker (if you, again, use seasonal rWAR as your guide), was no better than the 5th best player on the team in 1984 (behind Trammell, Lemon, Gibson, and Hernandez) and the 7th best in 1987 (behind Trammell, Morris, Evans, Alexander, Gibson, and Lemon). He was a valuable contributor, a solid part of the team, a cog in their success. But I don’t consider him a driving force.
In the 19 years that Whitaker and Trammell played together (’77-’95), the team finished in 3rd place or lower in the division 14 times. Outside of the 2 playoff years, the team won more than 90 games only once. Excluding the 2 strike-shortened seasons during their careers, the Tigers averaged 83 wins during this era. They had a .500+ record more often than not, but most of the time they really weren’t in the race. The years they didn’t make the playoffs, they averaged being 14 games out of first place. Now, that’s not entirely their fault, of course. But I think you’d have to say that, on the whole, the Tigers during those roughly 2 decades were actually kind of disappointing, despite quite a bit of talent on a lot of those teams.
Remember Bill’s "Keltner List" method for Hall of Fame evaluation? One of the questions on there was, "If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant"? I think the answer to that, in Whitaker’s case, is probably not.
Career & Peak
A player’s JAWS ranking is basically just another way to leverage rWAR, averaging a player’s career rWAR with his 7-year peak rWAR. But, even in Whitaker’s case, that is telling.
Whitaker’s career rWAR (75.1) among second basemen is 7th all-time. Higher than Frankie Frisch, Ryne Sandberg, Roberto Alomar, Craig Biggio, and 10 other Hall of Fame second basemen. That’s a valid point. But, again….it’s a cumulative measure, and Whitaker’s ability to play at a good level for a very long time served him well in accumulating his total.
However, when you flip to the other component of JAWS (WAR7, the top 7 years), he’s 20th. Now he’s behind Ian Kinsler, Ben Zobrist, and Chuck Knoblauch. Which makes sense. He didn’t have great years. Now, 20th is nothing to be embarrassed about…..but it underlines that he didn’t really put up great seasons.
So, when you average the career and the 7-year peak, you get a composite JAWS ranking of 13th. Which, is good, no doubt about it. But it basically just means that he had a long career of accumulating good seasons but didn’t put together a great peak. So, is that your idea of a Hall of Fame performance? For me, it’s not.
How about another way to leverage rWAR to put seasons into context? What if you took the greatest 100 seasons by second basemen (ranked by rWAR) and then summarized them by how many each player had? Basically this captures all seasons by second basemen of roughly 6.6 or above. Here’s what that leader board would look like:
Source: Baseball Gauge
Player
(*=Hall of Fame)
|
Top 100 Seasons
|
Avg. rWAR in Those Top 100 Seasons
|
Rogers Hornsby*
|
9
|
9.9
|
Eddie Collins*
|
8
|
8.9
|
Nap Lajoie*
|
7
|
8.6
|
Joe Morgan*
|
5
|
9.6
|
Chase Utley
|
5
|
7.9
|
Robinson Cano
|
5
|
7.7
|
Charlie Gehringer*
|
5
|
7.6
|
Jackie Robinson*
|
4
|
8.8
|
Ryne Sandberg*
|
4
|
7.6
|
Joe Gordon*
|
4
|
7.2
|
Frankie Frisch*
|
3
|
7.9
|
Bobby Grich
|
3
|
7.6
|
Rod Carew*
|
3
|
7.5
|
Chuck Knoblauch
|
3
|
7.4
|
Roberto Alomar*
|
3
|
7.1
|
Snuffy Stirnweiss
|
2
|
8.6
|
Ben Zobrist
|
2
|
8.1
|
Jose Altuve
|
2
|
7.9
|
Dustin Pedroia
|
2
|
7.5
|
Jeff Kent
|
2
|
7.2
|
Billy Herman*
|
2
|
6.9
|
Lou Whitaker
|
2
|
6.8
|
Craig Biggio*
|
1
|
9.4
|
Bret Boone
|
1
|
8.8
|
Eddie Stanky
|
1
|
8.0
|
Marcus Giles
|
1
|
7.9
|
Nellie Fox*
|
1
|
7.9
|
Fred Dunlap
|
1
|
7.8
|
Tony Lazzeri*
|
1
|
7.8
|
Brian Roberts
|
1
|
7.3
|
Cupid Childs
|
1
|
7.1
|
Bobby Avila
|
1
|
7.0
|
Randy Velarde
|
1
|
7.0
|
Ian Kinsler
|
1
|
7.0
|
Don Buford
|
1
|
7.0
|
Julio Franco
|
1
|
6.8
|
Willie Randolph
|
1
|
6.6
|
Most of the ones you would expect to see are near the top, including Hornsby, Collins, Lajoie, Morgan, and Gehringer. 2 more recent ones (Cano and Utley) also have 5 each, and Robinson, Sandberg, and Gordon each have 4.
Whitaker’s in a group of 7 players with 2 seasons, and of those 7, he’s the lowest in terms of average rWAR per those seasons (granted, Stirnweiss’ seasons get a big asterisk since they occurred in war years). That puts him 22nd on this list.
And in fact, Whitaker almost didn’t make the list at all. Of the top 100 seasons by this approach, Whitaker’s ranked #93 and #97.
Don’t like rWAR? What about if we did it using Win Shares instead? Using data from Baseball Gauge for Win Shares, you’d get the following (cutoff of the top 100 was around 29.6 Win Shares and above):
Player
|
Top 100 Seasons
|
Avg. Win Shares in Those Seasons
|
Eddie Collins
|
10
|
37.5
|
Rogers Hornsby
|
7
|
40.3
|
Joe Morgan
|
7
|
36.6
|
Nap Lajoie
|
6
|
38.1
|
Robinson Cano
|
6
|
33.4
|
Ryne Sandberg
|
5
|
33.9
|
Roberto Alomar
|
5
|
32.4
|
Jackie Robinson
|
4
|
34.9
|
Charlie Gehringer
|
4
|
33.0
|
Craig Biggio
|
4
|
32.1
|
Jose Altuve
|
3
|
34.1
|
Snuffy Stirnweiss
|
2
|
35.5
|
Frankie Frisch
|
2
|
34.0
|
Jeff Kent
|
2
|
33.3
|
Bret Boone
|
2
|
33.3
|
Cupid Childs
|
2
|
32.0
|
Chase Utley
|
2
|
31.9
|
Bobby Grich
|
2
|
31.2
|
Nellie Fox
|
2
|
31.0
|
Billy Herman
|
2
|
30.8
|
Rod Carew
|
2
|
30.7
|
Fred Dunlap
|
1
|
42.7
|
Matt Carpenter
|
1
|
36.8
|
Bobby Avila
|
1
|
33.7
|
Mark Loretta
|
1
|
33.0
|
Buddy Myer
|
1
|
32.1
|
Edgardo Alfonzo
|
1
|
32.1
|
Larry Doyle
|
1
|
31.6
|
Chuck Knoblauch
|
1
|
31.5
|
Joe Gordon
|
1
|
30.9
|
Tony Lazzeri
|
1
|
30.4
|
Steve Sax
|
1
|
30.1
|
Alfonso Soriano
|
1
|
30.0
|
Duke Kenworthy
|
1
|
29.9
|
Don Buford
|
1
|
29.8
|
Marcus Giles
|
1
|
29.8
|
Tom Herr
|
1
|
29.8
|
Willie Randolph
|
1
|
29.8
|
Eddie Stanky
|
1
|
29.7
|
Daniel Murphy
|
1
|
29.6
|
A lot of the same names are at the top of this list as there were on the first list. Alomar and Biggio do better by this measure, with Gordon, Utley, and Knoblauch sliding down.
Whitaker? He didn’t make the cut of the top 100 seasons. Whitaker’s top Win Shares season was 28.4 in 1983. It’s #123 on the list. Again, all of this is just to underscore the fact that Whitaker didn’t really generate standout seasons.
Let’s try an analogy. What if there were WAR for rock stars? Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix would probably be pretty low on the career WAR scale, wouldn’t they? They each only put out (I believe) 3 albums when they were alive.
But their peak was unbelievable. They had tremendous and long-lasting impact. They’re legends. They’re the ones I want to listen to, they’re the ones I enjoy remembering. They’re the epitome of Hall of Famers in their field. They’re also the epitome of recklessness and poor choices, but that’s another story.
Loverboy (remember "Working for the Weekend"?) is still playing and drawing crowds after 40 years….does that make them Hall of Famers? OK, you caught me….Loverboy is actually in the Canadian Music Hall of Fame, which I’ll concede. And, I’d be perfectly fine honoring Whitaker in the Tigers Hall of Fame, if they even have one. That would seem fair.
Or, another example: Golden Earring. Remember them? "Radar Love"? "Twilight Zone"? They’re still playing together with essentially the same members after 50 years. Anyone want to put them in the Rock Hall of Fame based on extreme longevity? Although, I have to admit, "Radar Love" does have a pretty cool drum solo…..
Career rWAR is a nice thing, but it’s only one thing to consider. Rick Reuschel has a 69.5 rWAR. Sandy Koufax only has 48.6. Koufax is a slam dunk Hall of Famer. Rick Reuschel is not. As it should be.
Accumulation of career rWAR doesn’t tell the whole story.
Seasons matter.
Best of His Era?
Whitaker is probably the best AL second baseman of his era, regardless of exactly which years you use to define it. If you were to do an all-decade team of the 1980’s, it would pretty much come down to Whitaker and Willie Randolph, with Frank White likely taking the bronze. Among the three, Whitaker had the most power, Randolph was the best at getting on base and the best base stealer, while White was the best defender, although Randolph and Whitaker were both pretty good too (I think White would likely be the consensus #2 defensive 2nd baseman of all time, behind Bill Mazeroski). Whitaker had the best all-around game. I think you’d have to go with Whitaker, but I would put Randolph fairly close behind.
If you broadened it to include both leagues, it would probably come down to Whitaker and Ryne Sandberg. And I’d go with Sandberg. If you compare careers using rWAR , Whitaker certainly has the edge over Sandberg in total rWAR, but Sandberg has 4 seasons that were better than Whitaker’s best. Whitaker had more good seasons, but Sandberg’s best seasons were better, including an MVP (not to mention a boatload of honors including 10 All Star games and 9 Gold Gloves). And that’s why he’s in the Hall already – he made a bigger impact, and people remember him for that.
So, I would consider Whitaker the best AL second baseman of his general era, and the 2nd best overall. Again, a nice feather in his cap, and a point in his favor.
I alluded to the Keltner List a while back. Another relevant question from that list would be, is Whitaker the best second baseman not in the Hall of Fame? Quite possibly, yes, but I don’t think that’s a slam dunk either. Probably the other two best retired candidates who are no longer on the ballot are Bobby Grich and Willie Randolph, and I think their cases are every bit as good as Whitaker’s. Jeff Kent is still on the ballot and annually drawing 15-20% of the vote. He’s got a good case as well.
Chase Utley is retired but not yet eligible, but he will be a viable candidate. Active players who will likely have solid cases are Robinson Cano (although he’s got a cloud hovering over him), Dustin Pedroia, and Jose Altuve. I personally think Altuve has one foot in already, and the other foot is drawing near. I may be overrating him because he’s still active and he does have a ways to go, but Altuve, to me, is shaping up as the essence of a Hall of Famer. I think he’ll be a slam dunk.
All Around Skill Set
I think as a general rule of thumb, it’s true that players who are good at several things but not great at any one thing tend to be underrated. That certainly hurt Whitaker’s perception while he was playing. His skills were more subtle. He had a good but not great batting average, made 5 All Star teams, which is a decent total but nothing spectacular, and managed to win 3 Gold Gloves after Frank White started to age and they got tired of giving him the award every year.
Whitaker had a good OBP, a good OPS+. Everything about him was "good", and none of it was "great".
So we have to ask….if there’s enough cumulative "good", does that make you "great"? Or is it just a whole bunch of good?
Shifting gears now….
The Rest of the Ballot, and a Few Words in Support of "Cobra"
This year’s Modern Era ballot contains (alphabetically):
Dwight Evans
Steve Garvey
Tommy John
Don Mattingly
Marvin Miller
Thurman Munson
Dale Murphy
Dave Parker
Ted Simmons
Lou Whitaker
Leaving Miller aside, you’re probably already well versed in the general stats associated with the players above, so in order to publish something of a little different nature, here is a summary of the players’ key figures from the "Hall of Fame Statistics" section from the player pages on baseball-reference.com (remembering that the Hall of Fame Monitor does not reflect who "deserves" to get in, only that it was designed to indicate how well players are tracking to Hall of Fame status based on historical standards, and also remembering that Bill has subsequently updated it in recent years).
Name
|
Primary Position
|
HOF Std
|
HOF Monitor
|
Black Ink
|
Gray Ink
|
rWAR
|
JAWS Rank at Position
|
Dwight Evans
|
RF
|
44
|
70
|
15
|
113
|
66.9
|
15
|
Steve Garvey
|
1B
|
32
|
130
|
12
|
142
|
37.7
|
51
|
Tommy John
|
SP
|
44
|
112
|
11
|
134
|
61.5
|
85
|
Don Mattingly
|
1B
|
34
|
134
|
23
|
111
|
42.2
|
39
|
Thurman Munson
|
C
|
29
|
90
|
0
|
46
|
45.9
|
12
|
Dale Murphy
|
CF
|
34
|
116
|
31
|
147
|
46.2
|
25
|
Dave Parker
|
RF
|
42
|
125
|
26
|
145
|
40.1
|
39
|
Ted Simmons
|
C
|
44
|
125
|
0
|
95
|
50.1
|
10
|
Lou Whitaker
|
2B
|
43
|
93
|
0
|
31
|
74.9
|
13
|
Note - John’s JAWS ranking is a little misleading on the surface because there are so many more starting pitchers to contend with.
- If you’re a JAWS fan, you’re likely to be partial to Simmons, Whitaker, Munson and Evans.
- If you’re the type who likes a more "traditional" approach that the Hall of Fame Monitor tries to reflect (honors, accomplishments, milestones, etc.) , you’re more likely to be partial to Mattingly, Garvey, Parker, and Simmons (and probably Murphy too).
- If you like big, league-leading (or near-league leading) category performances captured by black and gray ink measures, you’re likely to be partial to Murphy and Parker.
- And, if you like straight-up rWAR, then it’s Whitaker, Evans, and John.
In other words, this group of candidates offers a little something for everyone.
Most of these individuals have been on previous Veterans’ Committee type ballots (if we can still use the term "Veterans Committee"), in many cases multiple times, and most of these were on the ballot just a couple of short years ago (when Trammell and Jack Morris were elected). I believe this is roughly Miler’s 58th time on a ballot (I may not have that exactly right).
Munson is making his first appearance on a ballot in over a decade. Evans and Whitaker are each returning to a ballot for the first time since their brief times on the BBWAA ballot many years ago (Whitaker had just the one appearance in 2001, while Evans was on 3 ballots from 1997-1999).
As mentioned at the outset, I do think that Whitaker gets in this year, joining his keystone partner Trammell. I also think Ted Simmons, who only missed by a single vote last time around, gets in as well. And, I think that will be it.
If I had a vote, the very first player I’d vote for is Dave Parker. Which, I’m sure will seem nuts to some of you. After all, his career rWAR of just over 40 is barely more than half of Whitaker’s. How can he possibly be a better candidate?
The things I like most about Parker’s case are:
1) He has a legitimate argument that he was the best player in baseball for a specific period of time.
2) He has a terrific record of MVP support
The first point focuses on Parker’s peak, which is pretty clearly the time frame of 1975-1979. You may not think Parker was the best player in baseball during that time frame, but he’s certainly in the discussion, and he was definitely in the thick of the discussion at the time. His record salary at the time (first professional athlete to earn an average of $1 million per year) certainly helped reinforce that notion that he was an elite player.
If you isolate that 5-year time frame and use rWAR to identify the top 5 position players, the top contenders are Mike Schmidt, George Brett, Rod Carew, Joe Morgan. Here are some basic categories for those 5 over that time span:
1975-1979 top 5 rWAR:
Player
|
rWAR
|
G
|
PA
|
R
|
H
|
2B
|
3B
|
HR
|
RBI
|
SB
|
CS
|
BA
|
OBP
|
SLG
|
OPS+
|
Mike Schmidt
|
38.7
|
777
|
3,337
|
521
|
708
|
144
|
24
|
180
|
495
|
86
|
40
|
.258
|
.377
|
.525
|
144
|
George Brett
|
35.0
|
739
|
3,288
|
481
|
948
|
188
|
68
|
72
|
414
|
88
|
50
|
.316
|
.365
|
.496
|
137
|
Rod Carew
|
32.0
|
716
|
3,142
|
477
|
949
|
132
|
45
|
45
|
384
|
152
|
59
|
.348
|
.419
|
.479
|
151
|
Dave Parker
|
31.1
|
751
|
3,230
|
475
|
942
|
184
|
47
|
114
|
490
|
84
|
43
|
.321
|
.377
|
.532
|
147
|
Joe Morgan
|
30.8
|
699
|
2,954
|
471
|
677
|
131
|
18
|
88
|
390
|
223
|
40
|
.286
|
.414
|
.468
|
142
|
As anyone who has worked with oWAR and dWAR knows, you can’t simply add them together to get total rWAR, because both metrics contain a positional adjustment. The Baseball Gauge has a handy display that shows how rWAR figures break down into offensive, fielding and positional adjustment components, so you get a better view of what’s going below the surface, with Parker receiving a pretty hefty negative position adjustment:
Name
|
WAR
|
Off
|
Fld
|
Adj
|
Mike Schmidt
|
38.7
|
29.3
|
7.4
|
2.0
|
George Brett
|
35.0
|
27.1
|
5.3
|
2.6
|
Rod Carew
|
32.0
|
32.7
|
1.6
|
(2.3)
|
Dave Parker
|
31.1
|
29.8
|
4.8
|
(3.5)
|
Joe Morgan
|
30.8
|
30.2
|
(1.4)
|
2.0
|
The interesting thing about the top 2 (Schmidt and Brett) is that this time frame actually pre-dates their MVP years, which were all in the 80’s. Morgan won 2 MVP’s during this time frame (1975 & 1976) and Carew and Parker each won one. Morgan was spectacular in ’75 & ’76, and ’77 was still pretty decent, but he fell off pretty dramatically after that in ’78 & ’79, so some of this is certainly attributable to the exact "slice" of time.
It looks to me like Schmidt and Brett lift a little above the others due to defensive WAR and position adjustments. Parker had a higher batting average, slugging, and OPS+ than both of them over this time frame, and his OBP was better that Brett’s (tied with Schmidt). And, Parker rates as a pretty good defensive player himself during this part of his career.
How did these 5 do in MVP award voting during this time frame? Here are their MVP finishes:
Player
|
1975
|
1976
|
1977
|
1978
|
1979
|
Mike Schmidt
|
16
|
3
|
10
|
-
|
13
|
George Brett
|
11
|
2
|
13
|
9
|
3
|
Rod Carew
|
9
|
5
|
1
|
11
|
-
|
Dave Parker
|
3
|
20
|
3
|
1
|
10
|
Joe Morgan
|
1
|
1
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Morgan’s the one with 2 wins, but I think Parker’s is the most impressive overall of this group if you look at the entire time span. And, if you’ll excuse a quick sidebar, my opinion is that Parker deserved much better fate than a 10th place finish in 1979.
At the risk of contradicting my statement earlier in the article that you have to give a lot of respect to how voters see each season in the moment, I think the 1979 NL MVP vote is not one of the voters’ brighter moments. The Pirates had the best record in the NL that season and Dave Parker, by all rights, should have finished much higher than 10th.
You may recall that 1979 was the year that Keith Hernandez and Parker’s teammate (Willie Stargell) tied for the NL MVP. Hernandez did have a really good year – he won the batting title, led the league in runs and doubles, won a Gold Glove, posted a 7.6 rWAR – but Stargell (a mere 2.5 rWAR) won the award in large part on the basis of being "Pops" on the "We are Family" Pirates squad. He did hit a lot of home runs (especially per at bat), and he received a ton of credit for being the leader on the league’s best team. He also had an amazing postseason, which, of course, would not have factored into the regular season MVP voting.
Bear with me as we take a fresh look at the top 10 NL MVP finishers that year. Below are some key stats - hitters first, then pitchers, with overall MVP finish in the first column:
MVP
Finish
|
Name
|
Tm
|
Pts
|
1st
|
Share
|
rWAR
|
G
|
AB
|
R
|
H
|
HR
|
RBI
|
SB
|
BA
|
OBP
|
SLG
|
1
|
Willie Stargell
|
PIT
|
216
|
10
|
64%
|
2.5
|
126
|
424
|
60
|
119
|
32
|
82
|
0
|
.281
|
.352
|
.552
|
1
|
Keith Hernandez
|
STL
|
216
|
4
|
64%
|
7.6
|
161
|
610
|
116
|
210
|
11
|
105
|
11
|
.344
|
.417
|
.513
|
3
|
Dave Winfield
|
SDP
|
155
|
4
|
46%
|
8.3
|
159
|
597
|
97
|
184
|
34
|
118
|
15
|
.308
|
.395
|
.558
|
4
|
Larry Parrish
|
MON
|
128
|
0
|
38%
|
4.6
|
153
|
544
|
83
|
167
|
30
|
82
|
5
|
.307
|
.357
|
.551
|
5
|
Ray Knight
|
CIN
|
82
|
2
|
24%
|
3.1
|
150
|
551
|
64
|
175
|
10
|
79
|
4
|
.318
|
.360
|
.454
|
9
|
Dave Concepcion
|
CIN
|
63
|
0
|
19%
|
4.9
|
149
|
590
|
91
|
166
|
16
|
84
|
19
|
.281
|
.348
|
.415
|
10
|
Dave Parker
|
PIT
|
56
|
0
|
17%
|
6.7
|
158
|
622
|
109
|
193
|
25
|
94
|
20
|
.310
|
.380
|
.526
|
MVP Finish
|
Name
|
Tm
|
Pts
|
1st
|
Share
|
rWAR
|
W
|
L
|
ERA
|
G
|
SV
|
IP
|
H
|
BB
|
SO
|
6
|
Joe Niekro
|
HOU
|
75
|
1
|
22%
|
3.2
|
21
|
11
|
3.00
|
38
|
0
|
263.2
|
221
|
107
|
119
|
7
|
Bruce Sutter
|
CHC
|
69
|
0
|
21%
|
5.1
|
6
|
6
|
2.22
|
62
|
37
|
101.1
|
67
|
32
|
110
|
8
|
Kent Tekulve
|
PIT
|
64
|
1
|
19%
|
3.2
|
10
|
8
|
2.75
|
94
|
31
|
134.1
|
109
|
49
|
75
|
The 1979 Pirates had the best record in the National League, winning 98 games. Dave Parker, in my view, was clearly the best player on the best team, yet he finished 10th in the voting. I view him as being much more valuable to the Pirates than Stargell or Tekulve, who both finished ahead of him in the voting. Of course, this era was one in which relievers were starting to get deified by writers, but I’m still amazed that Tekulve got a first place vote.
The comparison of Parker to the 39-year old Stargell is striking when you look across multiple categories. Parker played 32 more games, had almost 200 more at bats, had 74 more hits, scored 49 more runs, drove in 12 more runs, had a batting average 29 points higher, an OBP 28 points higher, and won a Gold Glove, not to mention an rWAR 4.2 higher (which, of course, no one would have known at the time). Stargell had more home runs and a higher slugging percentage. Stargell didn’t even play enough to have enough plate appearances to qualify for the batting title. But, Stargell was seen as the "leader", and that carried a lot of weight with the voters.
And as far as the other candidates…..well, I’m the biggest Reds fan around, but I’m scratching my head over how Ray Knight and Dave Concepcion could have be seen as more valuable than Parker. Well, Concepcion did have a good year as the Reds were able to win the division. But Ray Knight??? 10 home runs, 79 RBI’s? Yes, Knight stepping in at 3B softened the blow of losing Pete Rose to free agency, but gimme a break. I don’t know how in the world that guy got 2 first place votes.
Now, I’m not saying Parker should have won – Winfield and Hernandez both had excellent years (as did Schmidt, who finished a distant 13th), and the voting is what it is, but I think Parker, especially given how well the team did, should have at least been top 5. I haven’t formally studied it, but I’d say it’s rare for someone who objectively was the best player on the best team in the league to finish as low as 10th in an MVP voting. That would be interesting to look at.
So, who’s your #1 during that time frame of the late ‘70’s? I think a lot of people would go with Schmidt, but Parker’s definitely up there. He’s in the discussion, and he was in the discussion at the time. And he has an argument as the best player of that time frame.
If you’re willing to accept an even shorter time span? If you consider just the 3 year span of 1977-1979, it’s probably among Parker, Schmidt, Brett, George Foster, and Jim Rice. Top 5 rWAR in that narrow slice:
Player
|
rWAR
|
G
|
PA
|
R
|
H
|
2B
|
3B
|
HR
|
RBI
|
SB
|
CS
|
BA
|
OBP
|
SLG
|
OPS+
|
Mike Schmidt
|
23.0
|
459
|
1,958
|
316
|
415
|
79
|
17
|
104
|
293
|
43
|
19
|
.260
|
.382
|
.526
|
143
|
George Brett
|
21.6
|
421
|
1,886
|
303
|
538
|
119
|
41
|
54
|
257
|
54
|
29
|
.313
|
.365
|
.524
|
139
|
Dave Parker
|
21.1
|
465
|
2,055
|
318
|
602
|
121
|
27
|
76
|
299
|
57
|
30
|
.327
|
.390
|
.546
|
150
|
Jim Rice
|
19.1
|
481
|
2,144
|
342
|
620
|
93
|
36
|
124
|
383
|
21
|
13
|
.320
|
.376
|
.596
|
153
|
George Foster
|
18.4
|
437
|
1,881
|
289
|
500
|
75
|
12
|
122
|
367
|
10
|
10
|
.301
|
.375
|
.582
|
157
|
Dave Winfield
|
18.0
|
474
|
2,013
|
289
|
534
|
86
|
22
|
83
|
307
|
52
|
25
|
.297
|
.366
|
.508
|
147
|
Who’s the best in that group? I don’t know….it’s pretty tight. You could even argue Foster or Rice. But I think Parker’s got as good an argument as anyone.
One last Parker chart. Here is a list of players with highest # of career MVP Award Shares. As you probably know, Award Shares is a Bill James creation, where your "share" of an award is your voting points as a % of the available maximum points in each vote.
Here are the players with the 50 highest award share points:
Key:
Hall of Fame
|
Not Yet Eligible
|
Eligible but has Steroid Cloud/Questions
|
Inelgible List
|
Rank
|
Player
|
# of MVPs
|
Award Shares
|
1
|
Barry Bonds
|
7
|
9.30
|
2
|
Stan Musial
|
3
|
6.96
|
3
|
Albert Pujols
|
3
|
6.91
|
4
|
Ted Williams
|
2
|
6.43
|
5
|
Willie Mays
|
2
|
5.94
|
6
|
Mike Trout
|
3
|
5.91
|
7
|
Mickey Mantle
|
3
|
5.79
|
8
|
Hank Aaron
|
1
|
5.45
|
|
Joe DiMaggio
|
3
|
5.45
|
|
Lou Gehrig
|
2
|
5.45
|
11
|
Alex Rodriguez
|
3
|
5.23
|
12
|
Mike Schmidt
|
3
|
4.96
|
13
|
Frank Robinson
|
2
|
4.84
|
14
|
Frank Thomas
|
2
|
4.79
|
15
|
Miguel Cabrera
|
2
|
4.68
|
16
|
Jimmie Foxx
|
3
|
4.22
|
17
|
Yogi Berra
|
3
|
3.98
|
18
|
Eddie Collins
|
1
|
3.86
|
19
|
Hank Greenberg
|
2
|
3.69
|
|
Brooks Robinson
|
1
|
3.69
|
21
|
Pete Rose
|
1
|
3.68
|
22
|
Charlie Gehringer
|
1
|
3.56
|
23
|
Rogers Hornsby
|
2
|
3.34
|
24
|
Eddie Murray
|
|
3.33
|
25
|
George Brett
|
1
|
3.30
|
|
Willie Stargell
|
1
|
3.30
|
27
|
Reggie Jackson
|
1
|
3.28
|
28
|
Harmon Killebrew
|
1
|
3.23
|
29
|
Ken Griffey Jr.
|
1
|
3.20
|
30
|
Dave Parker
|
1
|
3.19
|
31
|
Mike Piazza
|
|
3.16
|
32
|
Jim Rice
|
1
|
3.15
|
33
|
Carl Hubbell
|
2
|
3.07
|
34
|
Manny Ramirez
|
|
3.06
|
|
Joey Votto
|
1
|
3.06
|
36
|
Joe Morgan
|
2
|
3.04
|
37
|
Dizzy Dean
|
1
|
3.03
|
38
|
Paul Waner
|
1
|
2.99
|
39
|
David Ortiz
|
|
2.95
|
40
|
Vladimir Guerrero
|
1
|
2.94
|
41
|
Al Kaline
|
|
2.93
|
42
|
Jeff Bagwell
|
1
|
2.89
|
43
|
Mel Ott
|
|
2.87
|
44
|
Ernie Banks
|
2
|
2.83
|
45
|
Roberto Clemente
|
1
|
2.80
|
46
|
Johnny Bench
|
2
|
2.77
|
|
Derek Jeter
|
|
2.77
|
48
|
Juan Gonzalez
|
2
|
2.76
|
49
|
Bill Terry
|
|
2.72
|
50
|
Mickey Cochrane
|
2
|
2.70
|
Of the top 50 players, one is ineligible for election by the current rules of the Hall of Fame since he’s on MLB’s permanently ineligible list (Rose). Of the other 49, 6 are not yet eligible (Rodriguez, Trout, Pujols, Cabrera, Votto, and Ortiz). That leaves 43.
39 of the 43 (91%) are in the Hall of Fame (I counted Jeter as "in" since he’s a lock to be elected this year). Of the 4 eligible who aren’t in, 3 have at least some steroid connections/questions hovering over them - Bonds, Ramirez, and Gonzalez (I suppose we could have a discussion over whether Gonzalez isn’t in because of steroids or because voters didn’t think he was good enough). Of course, A-Rod, even when he does become eligible, will be in that group as well.
The one remaining name? Dave Parker.
I’m not blind to the "case against". His career rWAR of 40 isn’t very impressive. He sidetracked his career through drugs and weight issues, and in the course of doing so he may have cost himself a shot at 3,000 hits (he ended with 2,712), which would have made him a lock. His home run total of 339 isn’t very impressive for a big guy (he was always more of a doubles hitter). He spent a good part of the latter part of his career as a defensive liability and then, finally, as a DH. His OBP is low. His peak was too short.
Granted. But Hall of Fame consideration, to me, often contains a great deal of "feel" and subjectivity. Was someone impactful? Is he worth remembering? Is he worth honoring for what he did do? The NFL doesn’t have any stigma around electing players with brief but powerful peaks like Gale Sayers and Terrell Davis. Players who were impactful, if only for a short time. And I haven’t even brought up Parker’s legendary arm, which is a nice addition to anyone’s plaque.
As to the others on the ballot……
I don’t have real strong feelings. As mentioned before, they all have their strong points, and they all appeal to various segments and perspectives.
Regarding Marvin Miller, about whom there are very strong feelings on both sides……
I’ll tell you the truth…..I really don’t know what to do about him. I understand his vigorous supporters’ position - he certainly had influence and tremendous impact on the game….I’m just not sure that honoring him with a plaque is the right course of action, and I’m not even referring to his stated wish to not be inducted at this point.
What I wonder, and I don’t really know the answer to…..is there is precedence for honoring someone like Miller in any other Hall of Fame? The NFL has contributors (mostly executives) and Hockey has "builders" (again, I think mostly executives), but I don’t think any of them have anyone analogous to Miller, although I could very well be wrong.
And, I don’t even mean just sports….I mean any Hall of Fame. For example, is it incumbent for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame to honor agents or other individuals who represent the interests of the artists? There must be individuals who have had some kind of role in protecting artists’ rights. The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame has a category for "non-performers", which seems to include behind the scenes/technical people or people or composers or executives or radio personalities or people like that, people who are part of the industry who help to promote the popularity and appeal of the industry and the development of the craft. But I don’t think there are any people who essentially represent legal interests of the artists themselves.
I realize an industry of music artists isn’t perfectly analogous to an industry of professional athletes, and there are differences for sure, but just as a general concept, would you normally think to honor those whose job it is to protect performers’ interests? I don’t know if there are any instances like that, but it seems to me that it would be hard to fathom why an industry’s Hall of Fame would specifically honor those types of individuals.
Yes, I know they honor executives all the time. Probably way too much. You kind of expect that, because executives are trying to promote the appeal and popularity of their industry, even if their actions aren’t always of the highest integrity and if they’re often self-serving. I still think that’s a little different, and to be expected.
Miller was the executive leader of the player’s union who fought the system and rules and made things better for the players. That was his role. He didn’t represent the interests of the industry per se – he represented the players and their interests. You can argue that his role resulted in baseball being overall healthier for his efforts, but that really wasn’t the part he was there to play. Is there anyone else who’s done anything in that realm in any other field who is honored in similar manner in an industry’s Hall of Fame? That’s an honest question.
I don’t think it serves the question to simply take a stand and maintain that "it’s disgraceful" that he’s not in, as many have done. That doesn’t move the discussion forward. I think it’s a legitimate question to ask whether or not someone in his capacity really should be considered for such an individual level of recognition and honor.
Miller had an amazingly successful record of representing and fighting for the players, and you can conclude that the game is better off for it as well. I’m just not sure that a plaque specifically honoring him is the right course of action. An exhibit explaining his role and the role of the union and the impact and influence as part of the game’s history? Absolutely. It helps to tell the story of the game and its development, how we got from "then" to "now". I’m just not sure that recognizing him individually in the Plaque Gallery is the right way to go.
And….when you consider his stated desire that he doesn’t want to be inducted at this point, and that his family is fully supportive of that desire….well, I just don’t see the point of putting his name back on a ballot every couple of years just so he can be voted down. I don’t think it serves anyone’s interest at this point. I think it’s best to just honor Miller’s request and leave it at that.
Well, I didn’t mean to get off on that much of a tangent. Anyway, I wouldn’t truly be disappointed with any of the candidates making it or not making it, including Miller. If I were a voter and forced to choose, though, I’d probably just use 2 of my 4 slots and go with Parker and Murphy.
But for me, Parker, looking at the total package, is the one that appeals to me most, and would get a yes from me. Though very unlikely, I’d like to see him inducted. I realize not many would agree with me.
Wrapping it Up
I think Whitaker’s case, ultimately, is a philosophical one. It comes down to how we consider and define greatness, and how we decide who should be recognized and honored in the Hall of Fame. In my opinion, greatness is not found in the accumulation of a bunch of good. I need something more.
And seasons matter.
The word I like to keep in mind in the context of a Hall of Fame, regardless of what industry or field that it seeks to repreent, is "illustrious". I think members should have that characteristic. I really don’t know what was illustrious or especially memorable about Whitaker’s career, especially if you detach him from Trammell. He was a good player. He provided value. But I don’t see anything that lifts him out of the sphere of goodness into the arena of greatness. But then again, you can say that about a lot of people that are in the Hall of Fame.
So, will I be upset if he’s elected? No, I won’t. And I’ll be personally happy for him and everyone who’s been rooting for him. I’ll just have to remain in disagreement over what a Hall of Famer is and should be.
Thanks for reading.
Dan