Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bobby Grich

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

  • Fuzzy Bear
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul Wendt View Post
    It is "surprising" (in q-marks because I remember 1981) that Henderson did not win, with such a fine season for the player, completion of the "Billyball" comeback by the team, and Henderson seeming to fit Billyball as much as anyone.

    Among the 13 players ahead of Grich in the voting there are four from Oakland, eight from the five contending teams in the East, and Tom Paciorek form Seattle.

    Who would win today? OPS is now ordinary language but the adjustment to OPS+ is not, which would help Evans (league leaders Evans OPS, Grich OPS+).
    Henderson would probably win that award today, but Grich might have done better than 14th.

    Henderson is another player that was shafted in award voting.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Wendt
    replied
    Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear View Post
    Check out the 1981 AL MVP vote. It's ridiculous to think of how many players with inferior seasons finished ahead of Grich. There were REAL MVP candidates that finished ahead of Grich (Eddie Murray, Rickey Henderson), but Grich's 1981 season was actually better than theirs.
    It is "surprising" (in q-marks because I remember 1981) that Henderson did not win, with such a fine season for the player, completion of the "Billyball" comeback by the team, and Henderson seeming to fit Billyball as much as anyone.

    Among the 13 players ahead of Grich in the voting there are four from Oakland, eight from the five contending teams in the East, and Tom Paciorek form Seattle.

    Who would win today? OPS is now ordinary language but the adjustment to OPS+ is not, which would help Evans (league leaders Evans OPS, Grich OPS+).

    Leave a comment:


  • mtortolero
    replied
    The difference in the splits home/aways between Sandberg and Grich says a lot about them:

    Sandberg
    home 1098 g 164 Hr 300/361/491 852 OPS
    away 1066 g 118 Hr 269/326/412 738 OPS

    Grich
    home 998 g 109 Hr 268/375/421 796 OPS
    away 1010 g 115 Hr 264/366/426 792 OPS

    Some people overhere thinks that splits does not care to measure numbers however this kind of difference between two players makes look as the best player the guy who is considered the lesser one (Grich) over the HOF reference (Sandberg).

    Leave a comment:


  • Fuzzy Bear
    replied
    Originally posted by abacab View Post
    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?
    Grich was not perceived as a "great player", but he was, in fact, the REAL AL MVP of the 1981 season. He tied for the league lead in HRs, posted a .751 Offensive Winning Percentage, and played a key defensive position. Despite all this, they gave the award to Rollie Fingers, a relief pitcher, who may have deserved the Cy Young Award, but not the MVP. The only player that had a better offensive year was Dwight Evans, who posted a .786 OWP that year. I would still have given the award to Grich, as Grich played a more demanding defensive position, although Evans has a case.

    Check out the 1981 AL MVP vote. It's ridiculous to think of how many players with inferior seasons finished ahead of Grich. There were REAL MVP candidates that finished ahead of Grich (Eddie Murray, Rickey Henderson), but Grich's 1981 season was actually better than theirs.

    The problem with Grich's HOF case is the HUGE gray area the HOF has for second basemen. Grich falls into a group with Billy Herman, Bobby Doerr, and Ryne Sandberg, who are in, but also with Lou Whitaker and Joe Gordon, who are not in. He's better than Bill Mazeroski, and arguably better than Nellie Fox, but he's not as good as the unquestioned HOF second basemen such as Charlie Gehringer. He's about the player Jeff Kent has been. I think Grich is a HOFer, but he's not alone in the gray area outside the HOF, and may not necessarily be the best of that group.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Wendt
    replied
    Grich is one reasonable contender for best "20th century" candidate.

    Here my "20th century" probably covers about 80 years, those players with finales as regular players in the 1910s to 1980s. Bill Dahlen is too ancient and those now on the BBWAA ballot are too recent.

    He may be in the top ten among everyone who is past the BBWAA ballot, finales roughly 1870s to 1980s.

    [Edit: clarify time periods]
    Last edited by Paul Wendt; 03-02-2008, 06:09 PM. Reason: explain "20th century", add decade references

    Leave a comment:


  • rich
    replied
    Maz...not an HOF

    No disrespect, while enjoying the Urban Invitational on ESPN from Compton Cali, but I'd vote for no one on your list. I'd toss about 30-50 non deserving's ( My Opinion).

    Leave a comment:


  • jjpm74
    replied
    While I think Grich definitely should be there, he has to wait in line as there are a number of people not in the HOF who should get there first (like about a dozen 19th century guys, Bert Blyleven, Ted Simmons, Joe Gordon, Ron Santo, Minnie Minoso, and Dan Quisenberry for starters).

    Leave a comment:


  • rich
    replied
    old fuddie duddie

    Rice 406 Total bases. '78....No HOF Grich ....Santo ..No...Blyleven ....Nope.....Gil...Yeah...Tinkers to Evers to Chance to .....Goodbye.....They let in too many old frauds .

    Leave a comment:


  • jalbright
    replied
    merged threads

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by Chickazoola View Post
    A great player whose numbers look pretty average on the surface, but are excellent if you know what to look for.

    He really deserves more acclaim than he gets, but I am not losing sleep over his not being in the hall of fame. Now Jim Rice on the other hand...
    Grich had a very similar OPS+ (125 compared to 128) to Rice, while playing a far more important position, while playing it extremely well, while running the bases better, while playing just as long as Rice. I don't see any way Rice's credentials are better than Grichs.

    Oh yeah, both were postseason chumps.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chickazoola
    replied
    A great player whose numbers look pretty average on the surface, but are excellent if you know what to look for.

    He really deserves more acclaim than he gets, but I am not losing sleep over his not being in the hall of fame. Now Jim Rice on the other hand...
    Last edited by Chickazoola; 02-29-2008, 09:58 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • philkid3
    replied
    Bobby Grich

    I couldn't find this thread already existing, so I started it myself.

    What is your opinion on Bobby Grich's Hall of Fame resume?

    Leave a comment:


  • AstrosFan
    replied
    The only reason Grich is an A is because James is going on a per inning basis; among all players with 10,000+ innings at second base Grich ranks third in DWS/1000, behind Mazeroski and Hubbard. The margin is about half a win share, which is significant, but third among all players with long careers screams A+ to me.

    As hitters, Grich and Biggio are about the same. The only reason Biggio's rates are lower is because he's hung around in his decline, chasing 3,000. In their primes, their OPS+s are pretty much equal. What puts Biggio ahead is that he was a much better basestealer and grounded into a lower rate of double plays. As for baserunning outside the stats, I cannot speak for Grich, but I know Biggio excelled in that area.

    However, I shouldn't be unfair to Grich. He wasn't as good as Biggio at his best, and he doesn't have as much career value, but so what? He's still the best eligible second baseman not in the Hall, and one of the five best players not in the Hall.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yankwood
    replied
    Having had the opportunity to see Grich play in person quite a bit, I can say that Bobby had Hall of Fame ability but will never be a member due to short seasons. Too many years of less that 500 at bats will extinguish his chances. Too bad though. Like many others of less than Ripkenlike durability, it would have been interesting to see what could have been. Kind of Larkin-ish.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear View Post
    Grich is NOT as good as Biggio; his career wasn't as long, and he wasn't as good on defense.
    Grich isn't as good as Biggio solely because of longevity. Grich is better based on rates and he is a better defensive 2Bman. I don't know where you get that Biggio is even that good at second base. He's not a stopgap 2Bman but he's never had that much range. The Astros moved him to CF a few years ago in part because he wasn't that great and they thought Chris Burke, among other people, was better. If he was better than Grich who was a 4 time Gold Glover then that wouldn't happen. DWS has Biggio as a little above average (B-), and Grich as an A. BP has Biggio as a genuinely bad 2Bman actually, negative 126 runs, Grich at 82 runs above average. I don't agree with that but if he's above average I think it's barely. Offensively, based on rates they might be close because of Biggio's baserunning but Grich is probably a little better. Overall I think Biggio is clearly better-but only because he has more longevity.

    He is probably on the level Joe Gordon is, and Gordon SHOULD be in the HOF, so I don't have a problem with Grich.
    I think he's definitely on a higher level than Joe Gordon. With war credit for Gordon they have about the same longevity. The difference between them is really that Grich was much better at getting on base. Gordon's .357 OBP is barely above the league average of .349. Grich had a .371 OBP compared to .324 league average. Grich had a 125 OPS+ compared to 120 for Gordon, which IMO is really a bigger difference than it looks because of the quality of competition they faced and that Grich's comes more from undercompensated OBP. Gordon also wasn't nearly as good a fielder the 2nd half of his career with the Indians as he was with the Yankees. Gordon is 17 runs above average by BP and I believe a B by DWS. Defensive metrics clearly show Grich to be a better fielder. Grich was also regarded as an outstanding fielder while active in the first part of his career with the Orioles.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X