Bobby Grich

[abacab]

Bobby Grich is a real mystery to me. Before I joined BBF, I had literally never heard of him. The other day, I did a Google search just to find out what he looked like. According to the sabermetric stats, though, Grich clearly belongs in the Hall of Fame. Here's the case for and against Grich.

PRO:

- 329 Win Shares with a strong peak
- 115.4 WARP3 with a very strong peak - seven seasons above 9 WARP3
- career 125 OPS+ which is excellent for a second baseman
- 4 Gold Gloves
- 6 All-Star Games

CON:

- 1833 hits, 224 home runs, .266 BA are all well short of HoF standards, even for second basemen
- Never came close to winning an MVP - best finishes were 8th and 9th
- BBWAA voters dropped him off the HoF ballot after just one election. Out of 430 ballots, Grich got only 11 votes. The voters have been known to make mistakes, but this is a serious black mark in my mind.

I wasn't alive in the '70s (well technically I was but I don't remember anything). I'd specifically like to hear from people who were watching baseball in the '70s and early '80s. Was Grich ever perceived as a great player, one of the best in the game, a future Hall of Famer? Was he a true superstar that the writers just forgot or ignored, maybe because he played for mostly bad teams? Or are the uberstats just overrating him because he walked a lot? Does Grich belong in the Hall of Fame?

[Captain Cold Nose]

In the pre-stathead days when Grich was playing, Grich was well-regarded by those who closely followed baseball. He was overshadowed by his flashier teammates but well respected for his defense as well as his offense for a middle infielder when he was a player. He's a classic example of a player regarded as underrated while he was playing. I know I heard his name enough in discussions at the time about who was underrated.

[jalbright]

He certainly wasn't hurt by being on bad teams. Of the seasons he had 300 or more AB, 10 times his teams were over .500 (and one at 81-81), and he was on five division champs, none of which made the World Series.

Even so, I tend to agree with Captain Cold Nose's assessment despite questions of how underrated a multiple time all-star can be.

Jim Albright

[oscargamblesfro]

i think grich was comparable to craig biggio- not so much as a player, but in the sense that he was always a respected player, but never thought of as a superstar, and like Biggio in terms of it took him well into his career before the public at large started to catch on to how good he was. he certainly didn't have the name recognition of some of the other 2b in baseball at the time, and was certainly more obscure to casual fans than big market players like randolph or lopes, never mind a superstar like joe morgan....

[abacab]

Originally Posted by jalbright

He certainly wasn't hurt by being on bad teams. Of the seasons he had 300 or more AB, 10 times his teams were over .500 (and one at 81-81), and he was on five division champs, none of which made the World Series.

Good catch, but that just makes it more puzzling to me that Grich had so little support in MVP voting.

Grich will become eligible for VC consideration in 2007. It'll be interesting to see what his HoF contemporaries think of him, since he was so completely dissed by the BBWAA voters.

Biggio has definitely been an underrated star throughout his career, but he's still received more MVP support than Grich ever did (4th and 5th place finishes).

[Captain Cold Nose]

Grich was underrated in terms of comparison to all other players. The middle infield, in general, didn't have an abundance of highly regarded players during Grich's prime. Manny Trillo was elected as a starter two years in a row almost by default. Because the position wasn't so highly regarded outside of Joe Morgan, Girch appeared to be the best of a weaker lot, which really was not fair to Grich.

[jalbright]

I think Grich's first major league manager, Earl Weaver, certainly appreciated the types of things Grich could do. He was almost ideal for Earl. But the Bill James/sabermetric appreciation of the value of on base percentage didn't begin to enter the public consciousness until Grich's career was half over. Grich had nice power for a second baseman, but not league leading power. James has written that it took those two absolute monster MVP years by Morgan to get him something close to his due, so I wouldn't think it odd that a contemporary with many of the same virtues though at a slightly lower level would fail to be properly appreciated.

Jim Albright

[oscargamblesfro]

i've seen him compared to bobby doerr and joe gordon for historical players, but it's unclear to me who the most comparable second baseman of today would be, any guesses?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Originally Posted by abacab

Bobby Grich is a real mystery to me. Before I joined BBF, I had literally never heard of him. The other day, I did a Google search just to find out what he looked like. According to the sabermetric stats, though, Grich clearly belongs in the Hall of Fame. Here's the case for and against Grich.

PRO:

- 329 Win Shares with a strong peak
- 115.4 WARP3 with a very strong peak - seven seasons above 9 WARP3
- career 125 OPS+ which is excellent for a second baseman
- 4 Gold Gloves
- 6 All-Star Games

CON:

- 1833 hits, 224 home runs, .266 BA are all well short of HoF standards, even for second basemen
- Never came close to winning an MVP - best finishes were 8th and 9th
- BBWAA voters dropped him off the HoF ballot after just one election. Out of 430 ballots, Grich got only 11 votes. The voters have been known to make mistakes, but this is a serious black mark in my mind.

I wasn't alive in the '70s (well technically I was but I don't remember anything). I'd specifically like to hear from people who were watching baseball in the '70s and early '80s. Was Grich ever perceived as a great player, one of the best in the game, a future Hall of Famer? Was he a true superstar that the writers just forgot or ignored, maybe because he played for mostly bad teams? Or are the uberstats just overrating him because he walked a lot? Does Grich belong in the Hall of Fame?

How many second basemen in history have 226+ HRs?

Kent
Morgan
Sandberg
Hornsby
Gordon
Biggio

I think that's it for second basemen.

[Brian McKenna]

not so much baseball but - i ran a popular baltimore county restaurant for some years and grich would occassionally come in - the waitresses hated him - said he was arrogant and cheap - i never had a problem - he signed for me and we chatted a bit

[yanks0714]

I watched Bobby Grich when he was with the Orioles. Later, when he moved on to the Angels I didn't see him play nearly as much (I'm on the East coast).

When he was playing he was considered a good hard-working player but never really a star. I perceived him that way and I know that others I talked baseball to at the time did as well.

Years later, as I branch into statistical metrics I am surprised by Grich as much as any other player of how he is perceived...as HOF worthy. At first I was like, get off it, this guy was no HOF'er. But the more I looked at his stats, how he measured up, how others looking at his numbers (posters), and the so called 'experts' like Thorn/Palmer and Bill James I realized that he was really that good.

He wasn't flashy; he wasn't the kind of player who grabbed your attention; he didn't have monster games or years; and he certainly didn't give the impression of a future HOF'er.

He appears to be one of those players that quietly amassed a very fine career without bringing much attention to himself. He hit for an acceptable average; had good power for a middle infielder; fielded his position well without being spectacular; and got on base very well by being patient.

Is he a HOF'er? Not sure. I wouldn't vote for him but I wouldn't complain if he did.

[yanks0714]

Originally Posted by bkmckenna

not so much baseball but - i ran a popular baltimore county restaurant for some years and grich would occassionally come in - the waitresses hated him - said he was arrogant and cheap - i never had a problem - he signed for me and we chatted a bit

Outside Memorial Stadium in Baltimore, just hanging around before going in one Sunday, Bobby Grich came walking in. Dressed in a 3 piece suit, carrying the Sunday papers, and a briefcase. Kids pestered him for his autograh and he just walked on by, not signing one.
As he got closer to the players entrance where we were, I merely noded and said, "Hi Bobby". To my surprise he looked at me, smiled, nodded, said something I didn't quite catch although it sounded pleasent enough, and went on in. He may only have paid attention because my wife, who got her share of looks, was standing beside me in a halter top and cutoff jeans. :-)

Anyway he seemed nice enough in the very brief encounter with him.

Why I remember this is that before the game, as a competition, Grich was in a cow milking contest with some other O's. He won if I recall.

[abacab]

Originally Posted by Honus Wagner Rules

How many second basemen in history have 226+ HRs?

Kent
Morgan
Sandberg
Hornsby
Gordon
Biggio

I think that's it for second basemen.

There's another good catch. Guess I've been spoiled by all the slugging middle infielders of 1995-present, that I forgot standards used to be different.

Even so, I doubt anyone would argue that Grich was as good as Biggio or Sandberg, and I hope no one would argue Grich was as good as Morgan or Hornsby. That leaves Gordon, who isn't in the Hall, and Kent, who probably won't make it.

[RuthMayBond]

Originally Posted by abacab

Bobby Grich is a real mystery to me. Before I joined BBF, I had literally never heard of him.

Insert ElHalo joke here

[538280]

Originally Posted by abacab

Even so, I doubt anyone would argue that Grich was as good as Biggio or Sandberg

I would argue Grich is better than Sandberg.

In my mind, all Ryno has here is longevity, and even that is lacking because Grich probably did have more career value.

First, let's look at offense. I don't think it's even close. Grich beats him in OPS+ by 11 points, and in EqA by 7 points. Sandberg was better in the much more flashy BA (though only slightly), but Grich took his pitches and killed him in OBP. Power is about equal, probably with a slight edge to Grich because some of Sandberg's power is coming from his BA. Here are their relative stats (BA/OBP/SLG):

Grich-103/115/110
Sandberg-106/102/112

Sandberg is better in rel. SLG but Grich beats him in rel. IsoPower 126 to 124. I think IsoPower is a better measure of pure power than SLG%.

Overall, Sandberg's small BA advantage and arguable slugging advantage is certainly outweighed by the fact Grich was far better at getting on base. The OPS+ and EqA paint a good picture of their offensive abilities.

Whats left? Baserunning and fielding.

Sandberg was a better baserunner. But, I'm sure we all know that that means little in the big picture. Grich's walks take care of that easily. Basestealing is included in EqA, and it still shows Grich being superior offensively.

Fielding? They were both tremendous defensive second basemen. The Gold Glove voters were more impressed by Sandberg, giving him 9 Gold Gloves to Grich's four. But, they obviosly thought Sandberg was a better overrall player, so their opinions were probably biased somewhat.

Defensive stats have reached a consensus that Grich was a better fielder. BP gives Grich 531 FRAR and 129 FRAA, compared to Sandberg's 503 FRAR and 72 FRAA. Defensive Win Shares have Grich at 5.68 DWS/1000 innings, with Sandberg at 5.18 DWS/1000. Fielding Runs has Grich at 126 runs and Sandberg at 99.

So, who do we trust? The stats or the opinions of the Gold Glove voters? I think the stats are more trustworthy. Gold Gloves have proven in the past to not be credible with selections like Palmeiro in 1999. I often think that the voters don't really know how to quantify defensive performance so they often give it to a good hitter. They are almost as often won with the bat as they are with the glove, in summary. The defensive stats are to be trusted.

And even if we chose to believe the GG voters, it would be awful tough to overcome the offense. Although not regarded to be as good with the bat, Grich's primary offensive skills were undervalued, while people weren't paying any attention to Sandberg's lack of patience. I go with Grich, rather easily.

[abacab]

Originally Posted by 538280

Overall, Sandberg's small BA advantage and arguable slugging advantage is certainly outweighed by the fact Grich was far better at getting on base. The OPS+ and EqA paint a good picture of their offensive abilities.

Arguable? Sandberg hit at least 25 home runs in six different seasons, Grich did it once.

Again, does anyone know why Grich drew so many walks? Were pitchers in the '70s really scared of a .270 BA and 18 home runs? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Sandberg was a better baserunner. But, I'm sure we all know that that means little in the big picture. Grich's walks take care of that easily. Basestealing is included in EqA, and it still shows Grich being superior offensively.

I thought we "all" knew that it's nice to have players that have many offensive skills rather than just one or two.

Defensive stats have reached a consensus that Grich was a better fielder. BP gives Grich 531 FRAR and 129 FRAA, compared to Sandberg's 503 FRAR and 72 FRAA. Defensive Win Shares have Grich at 5.68 DWS/1000 innings, with Sandberg at 5.18 DWS/1000. Fielding Runs has Grich at 126 runs and Sandberg at 99.

That is interesting. As you said, Gold Gloves are often won with the bat. Maybe Grich was the kind of player who was always in the right position so he never had to dive or make spectacular plays. I'm just trying to get a feel for Grich - what kind of player was he?

I go with Grich, rather easily.

So what makes you think you know better than 430 BBWAA voters?

[538280]

Originally Posted by abacab

Arguable? Sandberg hit at least 25 home runs in six different seasons, Grich did it once.

You don't think the era has anything to do with that? Grich would have easily gotten 25+ HRs in 1981 if it wasn't for the strike also.

Again, does anyone know why Grich drew so many walks? Were pitchers in the '70s really scared of a .270 BA and 18 home runs? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Don't know for sure, never saw him play. My best guess is that he was just patient and took his pitches.

I thought we "all" knew that it's nice to have players that have many offensive skills rather than just one or two.

Grich did have many offensive skills. His only tremendous skill was plate discipline. He also had great power for a 2B and decent contact. Sandberg had the same skills except he traded the walks for SBs. I think walks are much more valuable.

That is interesting. As you said, Gold Gloves are often won with the bat. Maybe Grich was the kind of player who was always in the right position so he never had to dive or make spectacular plays. I'm just trying to get a feel for Grich - what kind of player was he?

Maybe. My guess is as good as yours. I have heard many people give lots of tribute to Grich's defense. Gary Huckabay gives him lots of praise in this article.

So what makes you think you know better than 430 BBWAA voters?

The 430 BBWAA voters didn't realize the importance of OBP or the base on balls. Grich was a far better offensive player than they perceived him to be.

[RuthMayBond]

Originally Posted by abacab

Arguable? Sandberg hit at least 25 home runs in six different seasons, Grich did it once.

If HRs are the end-all, Sandberg had Wrigley Field

<I thought we "all" knew that it's nice to have players that have many offensive skills rather than just one or two.>

But some are more important than others

<That is interesting. As you said, Gold Gloves are often won with the bat. Maybe Grich was the kind of player who was always in the right position so he never had to dive or make spectacular plays.>

You have to know what you're doing, it doesn't "just happen"

<So what makes you think you know better than 430 BBWAA voters?>

You mean the ones that included McCarthy, Haines, Lopez, GKelly, Lindstrom, TJackson, Hafey, and LWaner and excluded Allen, Blyleven, Simmons, McGriff, DaEvans, Dahlen, Raines, JWynn, and DwEvans, those writers?

[Captain Cold Nose]

Originally Posted by RuthMayBond

You mean the ones that included McCarthy, Haines, Lopez, GKelly, Lindstrom, TJackson, Hafey, and LWaner and excluded Allen, Blyleven, Simmons, McGriff, DaEvans, Dahlen, Raines, JWynn, and DwEvans, those writers?

The writers did not elect a single player on your list. And, according to the HOF website, Lopez was elected as a manager.

[abacab]

Originally Posted by RuthMayBond

<So what makes you think you know better than 430 BBWAA voters?>

You mean the ones that included McCarthy, Haines, Lopez, GKelly, Lindstrom, TJackson, Hafey, and LWaner and excluded Allen, Blyleven, Simmons, McGriff, DaEvans, Dahlen, Raines, JWynn, and DwEvans, those writers?

You're talking about the VC, not the BBWAA. My mom could do a better job of picking HoFers than the old VC.

None of the players you listed look very impressive by "traditional" stats, which is what the writers look for. Raines and McGriff aren't even eligible yet. Allen was unpopular and had a short career, Wynn had a short career, Simmons had a rep of being subpar defensively.

There's evidence that players of the '60s, '70s, and '80s are being held to a much higher standard than pre-WWII era players. But, that doesn't change the fact that the BBWAA is comprised of people who have been watching and writing about baseball for more than ten years, and only two percent of them thought Grich was a Hall of Famer.

Originally Posted by 52891093580

You don't think the era has anything to do with that?

Were the late '70s - early '80s a vastly different era than the mid-to-late '80s?

[Bench 5]

Originally Posted by 538280

I would argue Grich is better than Sandberg.

In my mind, all Ryno has here is longevity, and even that is lacking because Grich probably did have more career value.

First, let's look at offense. I don't think it's even close. Grich beats him in OPS+ by 11 points, and in EqA by 7 points. Sandberg was better in the much more flashy BA (though only slightly), but Grich took his pitches and killed him in OBP. Power is about equal, probably with a slight edge to Grich because some of Sandberg's power is coming from his BA. Here are their relative stats (BA/OBP/SLG):

Grich-103/115/110
Sandberg-106/102/112

Sandberg is better in rel. SLG but Grich beats him in rel. IsoPower 126 to 124. I think IsoPower is a better measure of pure power than SLG%.

Overall, Sandberg's small BA advantage and arguable slugging advantage is certainly outweighed by the fact Grich was far better at getting on base. The OPS+ and EqA paint a good picture of their offensive abilities.

Whats left? Baserunning and fielding.

Sandberg was a better baserunner. But, I'm sure we all know that that means little in the big picture. Grich's walks take care of that easily. Basestealing is included in EqA, and it still shows Grich being superior offensively.

Fielding? They were both tremendous defensive second basemen. The Gold Glove voters were more impressed by Sandberg, giving him 9 Gold Gloves to Grich's four. But, they obviosly thought Sandberg was a better overrall player, so their opinions were probably biased somewhat.

Defensive stats have reached a consensus that Grich was a better fielder. BP gives Grich 531 FRAR and 129 FRAA, compared to Sandberg's 503 FRAR and 72 FRAA. Defensive Win Shares have Grich at 5.68 DWS/1000 innings, with Sandberg at 5.18 DWS/1000. Fielding Runs has Grich at 126 runs and Sandberg at 99.

So, who do we trust? The stats or the opinions of the Gold Glove voters? I think the stats are more trustworthy. Gold Gloves have proven in the past to not be credible with selections like Palmeiro in 1999. I often think that the voters don't really know how to quantify defensive performance so they often give it to a good hitter. They are almost as often won with the bat as they are with the glove, in summary. The defensive stats are to be trusted.

And even if we chose to believe the GG voters, it would be awful tough to overcome the offense. Although not regarded to be as good with the bat, Grich's primary offensive skills were undervalued, while people weren't paying any attention to Sandberg's lack of patience. I go with Grich, rather easily.

I watched Grich play when he was with the Angels in the early 80s. He was similar to Sandberg in that they were both tall second basemen who had a lot of range for the position. Neither of them dove for the ball but they were both good athletes if not somewhat mechanical. I would compare Grich to Jeff Kent offensively although he was much better defensively.

Sandberg was considered THE best second baseman of the mid-80s through the early 90's. He was also rated as one of the best players in baseball in the mid-80s.

Grich was a very good player but he was never considered an elite player. Grich was one of the best 2nd baseman of the 70s and early 80s but he was a notch below Joe Morgan and about equal to Lou Whitacker. He was very strong and had excellent power in his forearms and wrists. I think he was easily the strongest 2nd baseman of his day. As you mention if not for the strike in 1981 he would have hit over 30 HRs that year. He tied for the league lead as it was. If he would have played 3-4 more years I think he would have had a pretty good shot at the HOF but his lifetime stats don't measure up.

[538280]

Originally Posted by abacab

Were the late '70s - early '80s a vastly different era than the mid-to-late '80s?

Grich did come into a bit of a better offensive league in the early 1980s, but there is no question that the game changed a lot from 1977 to 1987. In the late 80s things really started escolating into the big offense that would come to characterize the 1990s.

[yanks0714]

[quote=abacab]
Again, does anyone know why Grich drew so many walks? Were pitchers in the '70s really scared of a .270 BA and 18 home runs? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Don't know for sure, never saw him play. My best guess is that he was just patient and took his pitches.

Ever see Bobby Grich's batting stance? It was a pronounced lean from the waist. Not a crouch like Rickey Henderson, but clearly compressed his strike zone (yes, I know the umps aren't suppsed to call it by the batting stance). He also crowded the plate quite a bit getting the call on inside pitches.

Another, albeit smaller, point is that Grich did not run particularly well. He was bit heavy legged. Pitchers were not afraid of walking him and having him steal a base.

He did have a rep for having decent power, particularly for a mid-infielder, that gained him respect among opposing pitchers as well. He had a short compact swing that generated very good bat speed due to strong arms and wrists. His arms looked more like a 1B than a 2B.

While he was playing nobody I know of thought of him as an All-Star type much less HOF caliber. Looks like it has taken metrics to make us realize how good he really was.

[RuthMayBond]

Originally Posted by Bench 5

I watched Grich play when he was with the Angels in the early 80s. He was similar to Sandberg in that they were both tall second basemen who had a lot of range for the position. Neither of them dove for the ball

Well dang, Grich was probably about the eighth best defensive 2B

<Sandberg was considered THE best second baseman of the mid-80s through the early 90's. He was also rated as one of the best players in baseball in the mid-80s. >

Because of concentration on offense and because of Wrigley. Grich's relative SLG only trails 110 to 112.

[RuthMayBond]

Originally Posted by yanks0714

While he was playing nobody I know of thought of him as an All-Star type.

Are you referring to 1972, '74, '76, '79, '80 or '82?