Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bobby Grich

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    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?

    Comment


    • #17
      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.

      Comment


      • #18
        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?
        Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
        Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

        Comment


        • #19
          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.
          Dave Bill Tom George Mark Bob Ernie Soupy Dick Alex Sparky
          Joe Gary MCA Emanuel Sonny Dave Earl Stan
          Jonathan Neil Roger Anthony Ray Thomas Art Don
          Gates Philip John Warrior Rik Casey Tony Horace
          Robin Bill Ernie JEDI

          Comment


          • #20
            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?
            Last edited by abacab; 12-29-2005, 10:45 AM.

            Comment


            • #21
              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.
              "Batting slumps? I never had one. When a guy hits .358, he doesn't have slumps."

              Rogers Hornsby, 1961

              Comment


              • #22
                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.

                Comment


                • #23
                  [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.

                  HTML Code:
                  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.

                  Yankees Fan Since 1957

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    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.
                    Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
                    Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      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?
                      Mythical SF Chronicle scouting report: "That Jeff runs like a deer. Unfortunately, he also hits AND throws like one." I am Venus DeMilo - NO ARM! I can play like a big leaguer, I can field like Luzinski, run like Lombardi. The secret to managing is keeping the ones who hate you away from the undecided ones. I am a triumph of quantity over quality. I'm almost useful, every village needs an idiot.
                      Good traders: MadHatter(2), BoofBonser26, StormSurge

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Code:
                        Originally Posted by yanks0714
                        While he was playing nobody I know of thought of him as an All-Star type.
                        Originally posted by RuthMayBond
                        Are you referring to 1972, '74, '76, '79, '80 or '82?
                        Yes, I am aware he made all-star teams. I was trying to indicate that no one thought he was a great player per se'. Not all All-Stars are great players. It could well depend on who their competition is at the position.

                        He was good, steady, and unspectacular. That was how I saw him as did othre baseball fans I jnew at the time.

                        I now find that I was wrong about him. I assume it was that steady unspectacular play that accumulated without bringing much notice.

                        I'll go so far as to say that doubt anyone who was around at the time Grich was playing thought they were watching a potential HOF'er.

                        Yankees Fan Since 1957

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          --When Bobby Grich was with Baltimore he was an absolutely fabulous defensive 2B, as good as anybody I've ever seen. He hurt his back in his first season in California and after that was still pretty good with the glove, but not like he was before the injury.
                          --Grich was, as I recall, a very highly regarded young player. When he hit the free agent market after 1976 he was highly sought after - a definate star. That back injury came in his first season after getting the big contract and he missed most of the season. He had his worst season the next year, most likely still dealing with the injury, and came to be regarded as a free agent bust. Even though he had his best offensive seasons later, that seemed to dim his star for the rest of his career.
                          --Grich would have been a very good MVP choice in 1979. He was surely more important to the Angels than the actual winner, Don Baylor. He would have been a decent MVP choice in 1981 as well. His career is relatively short and he was never exactly dominant, so he is hardly a slamdunk Hall of Famer. He is better than alot of guys who have made it though.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by leecemark
                            --When Bobby Grich was with Baltimore he was an absolutely fabulous defensive 2B, as good as anybody I've ever seen. He hurt his back in his first season in California and after that was still pretty good with the glove, but not like he was before the injury.
                            --Grich was, as I recall, a very highly regarded young player. When he hit the free agent market after 1976 he was highly sought after - a definate star. That back injury came in his first season after getting the big contract and he missed most of the season. He had his worst season the next year, most likely still dealing with the injury, and came to be regarded as a free agent bust. Even though he had his best offensive seasons later, that seemed to dim his star for the rest of his career.
                            --Grich would have been a very good MVP choice in 1979. He was surely more important to the Angels than the actual winner, Don Baylor. He would have been a decent MVP choice in 1981 as well. His career is relatively short and he was never exactly dominant, so he is hardly a slamdunk Hall of Famer. He is better than alot of guys who have made it though.
                            He was a good defensive player when he wa younger and with Baltimore. I seem to remember him playing some SS as well. Do you remember him playing there?
                            Yes, he was a sought after free agent. Baltimore hated to lose him but the Angels were bringing all those veteren stars trying to buy a pennant (Carew, DeCinces, Downing, Baylor, etc). This was before Angelos, when some sanity reigned in Crabcake Town.
                            I had forgotten Grich hd hurt his back. Didn't remember it until you mentioned it.
                            And we appear to agree, he was never dominant and certain;y not a slam dunk HOF'er even now when we look back at a very good career.

                            Yankees Fan Since 1957

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Didn't Bobby hurt his back trying to lift an AC unit.....?

                              well he was a multiple All-Star, but not every all star is great, but he does have good numbers, maybe not HOF, but then again with some of the people in the HOF now a days. Bobby might make it in 20-30 years. It could happen
                              "YA GOTTA BELIEVE!"- Tug McGraw

                              "You see, you spend a good piece of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it turns out it was the other way around all the time"- Jim Bouton, the last line in Ball Four

                              "I don't care if the guy (Jackie Robinson) is yellow or black, or if he has stripes like a g**-damn zebra. I'm the manager of this team and I say he plays."- Leo Durocher

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by 538280
                                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.

                                Chris,

                                You REALLY need to do better research, 1988, 1989, and 1992, just off the top of my head, were NOT huge offensive years. In 1988 the highest scoring team in the NL (Mets) scored just 703 runs. Four NL teams scored under 600 runs. Five NL teams hit less than 100 HRs.

                                In 1989 The Cubs lead the NL with 702 runs. Nine of the 12 NL teams averaged less than four runs a game. Four teams hit less than 100 HRs.

                                In 1992 the Pirates led the NL with 693 runs. Four teams scored under 600 runs and five teams hit less than 100 HRs. Seven teams scored less than four runs a game.

                                The late 1980s-early 1990s was a pitching dominated era. Only 1987 was a severe outlier for some strange unknown reason.

                                People always seems to think that the entire 1990s was a huge offensive era. That is not true. Things really didn't take off with offense until 1994.
                                Last edited by Honus Wagner Rules; 12-31-2005, 02:11 AM.
                                Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X