And why was Bobby Richardson in THE Yankee Stadium Phone Booth HOF thingee and Horace Clarke not?!
Frank White and Bill Mazeroski had almost identical careers. Mazeroski is in the Baseball Hall of Fame while White is left out. The reason for Mazeroski being in the Hall of Fame can be traced back to a ball he hit on October 13, 1960 and handful of Hall of Fame voters.
...In 1996, White received 18 votes (the same number as Dan Quisenberry) for 3.8% of the vote. This amount was 6 votes shy of the number to continue onto the next year’s ballot. Any chances of White ending up in the Hall of Fame effectively ended that year.
In 1978, Mazeroski was the last player to make the 5% cutoff value to be eligible for consideration the next year with 6.1% of the vote. The player right below in the voting, Ken Boyer, was twice as good of player with 58 lifetime WAR and was the 1964 MVP.
...The BBWAA decided that Mazeroski’s achievements were not enough to get him voted into the Hall of Fame. The Veterans committee met in 2000 to vote and Mazeroski fell one vote short of being in the Hall of Fame. The next year, he got the extra vote and went into the Hall with Dave Winfield, Kirby Puckett and Hilton Smith.
The pair had similar careers, but Mazeroski had the luck of hitting a Game 7 World Series walk off home run. That single home run kept his Hall of Fame chances alive and that was all the luck that he needed.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Pat Rapper's Delight Posted: July 18, 2011 at 02:38 PM (#3880123)Piffle. Rightly or wrongly when it comes to defensive reputations, Maz is still talked about as the greatest defensive 2B ever. White isn't.
Not saying that Maz deserves to be in, but if you're going to make a decision between two similar players, a Game 7 walkoff is not the worst way you could do it.
Mazeroski got 23 votes in 1978. So, Maz got 5 more votes than White in their respective first years on the ballot. If Maz had gotten 5 fewer votes, he'd have fallen off the ballot as well. Instead, he stuck around and saw his total grow from 6% to 42% by his last year on the ballot (182 votes in 1992).
It's kind of interesting how close they actually did start out, but how different the end result was just because they fell just barely on opposite sides of the 5% cutoff.
The gap between Maz and White fielding wise is a legitimate reason to put Maz in the HOF for that reason... he was significantly better than the next best guy and the next best guy (White) was really, really good.
In one sense, yes. But it really only covers one of the two. If you flipped their respective first-year votes, Frank White falls off the ballot after two years or three years. As Pat notes, he didn't have that "greatest fielding second baseman of all-time" rep to hang his hat on, which is ultimately what got Maz in (though he might still have been on the outside if he didn't have that one signature offensive moment as well).
BTW, I think White's case a great one for an argument against the 5% rule... that rule is probably the most ridiculous rule in a completely ridiculous process.
On the other hand, Frank White was not getting elected to the Hall of Fame by the BBWAA if you gave him 100 turns on the ballot. Clogging the ballots with proven non-electable guys seems a pretty good way to ensure even fewer players get elected, which is ultimately what matters.
My big problem with the 5 percent rule is that the various Veteran's Committees seem to use 15 years on the ballot as a requirement for reconsideration of the considered and rejected and ignore those too easily dismissed. That's where the process needs to be fixed.
Yes. (Although to be fair, the article never explicitly denies this... I read it as carrying that implication, but it never says it.)
Yes.
Royals Review is a better site than this, usually.
I wonder how much White might have benefitted if he was still around in 2002, the year after Maz was elected by the Veterans' Committee. Maz stayed at pretty much the same level his first 5 years on the ballot - he got 23/6.1% in 1978 and 28/6.7% in 1982, before jumping up over the next few years. I have no idea what caused his bump. But if White could have hung around at 5-6% from 1996 - 2001, I wonder if Maz getting in might have prompted a few folks to look at White and see the similarities - they won the same number of Gold Gloves (8), played on the same number of World Series winners (1) (White even batted cleanup for the '85 Royals, I think).
I tend to agree, it wouldn't have been enough: they're similar, but I think Maz is better and the "best defensive 2B ever" and iconic HR certainly give him a much stronger case. But I wonder if White couldn't have gotten up to 20-30% and hung around for 15 years on the ballot, which could get him in peoples' minds for when his turn comes up from the Veterans' Committee (think Davey Concepcion as a comp).
In that case, I'll refer them back to reply 1. Has anyone with a national audience ever even suggested Vizquel is the best fielding SS ever? Especially so since his career overlaps Ozzie Smith's.
Are we not allowed some regression to the mean. -Jeff
(Also, my obligatory assertion that Mark Ellis is the best 2nd baseman I've ever seen. I never saw Maz play, of course.)
Not really. The Pirates' 177 DP's led the runnerup Cubs by only 6, and it was only 17 above the 160 average of the entire NL.
I chuckled. I'm surprised the writer didn't claim he had his eyes closed when he did it.
The 5 pct rule should only apply after 3 to 5 years. An electorate that tends to only vote for "first ballot Hall of Famers" in their first year on the ballot shouldn't also be eliminating those who clearly aren't that, but might be worth secondary consideration.
I can see that, even though I beileve 'first-ballot' voters are really a small subset of the electorate.
Players who start at or near 5 percent don't get elected to Cooperstown, and wouldn't if the 5 percent rule was abolished completely.
BB-Ref breaks results down for Home v. Road. For Frank White, he was +120 overall (in what BB-Ref calls Rtz), which breaks down to +103 at home and +17 on the road. He was then another +6 in Rdp. Mazeroski breaks down at +56 home, +55 road, +37 Rdp.
Damn.
I used to have an editor in Little Rock -- a former copy editor, yet -- who always made this error. She, too, should've been horsewhipped.
You're probably thinking of 1966, when the Pirates had 215 DPs, which led the league by 44. The difference in DPs between the Pirates and the second-place Mets was roughly the same as the difference between the Mets and the last-place Astros.
By the way, if you call up Bill Mazeroski's BB-ref page, it sends you straight to his fielding stats. Cute.
Ever since I read (Hardball Times?) the comparison between Cano and Pedroia that compared their defense using two different saber-methodologies (UZR and something else) and came up with radically---I mean 180 degrees---different conclusions depending on the stat, I simply can't read something like the quote above and think that it really means something.
You could say, "well at least White and Mazersoki are in the same ballpark for their career," but can you really trust that? UZR had Cano something like +30 and Pedroia -1, and the other system had Cano way down and Pedroia way up. If these systems can't even agree if a defender is way above or below average, as opposed to being merely around average, I have a hard time relying on them as any kind of supporting evidence in an argument such as this.
...
The gap between Maz and White fielding wise is a legitimate reason to put Maz in the HOF for that reason... he was significantly better than the next best guy and the next best guy (White) was really, really good.
I wouldn't call one win over the course of a career "significantly better". But it seems possible, based on reputation, that the numbers understate Maz's superiority.
I doubt either really deserves to be in, but at least I understand why Maz is.
My god.... is that even legal?
Slugged more on the road, much better BA at home:
Home 45 HR .269 .307 .366
Road 93 HR .252 .292 .369
Each player has exactly 26.9 career WAR. If you combine Maz thru age 30 with White after age 30, you get a player with 41.3 WAR.
What could have possibly happened from 1959 to 1962?
Those seasons happen to perfectly correspond to Dick Stuart's four seasons as the Pirates first basemen (he started as the 1b in 1959 taking over for Kluszewski and ended his reign of glove terror in Pittsburgh after the 1962 season, when Clendenon took over). In other words, Dick Stuart was so bad, he made Bill Mazeroski look human.
I did see Mazeroski play, but I never saw him do anything remarkable. Best second basemen I've ever seen do something remarkable were Manny Trillo and Orlando Hudson.
But that's the thrill effect: Trillo had the best arm, and Hudson is (or was awhile ago) the most mobile guy I've ever seen at the position. (Michael Humphreys says something in Wizardry to the effect that Hudson is one of the extremely few infielders for whom popups are sometimes skill plays: his racing around the short outfield actually takes hits away, and isn't just "ball-hogging.")
I saw Frank White play fairly often and can't remember much about his style. Good-looking, for sure, but no more so than Randolph or Whitaker or Sandberg or Gantner or a lot of their contemporaries. White struck me as one of those fielders who was simply there wherever the ball was hit or thrown, which is ultimately what counts.
I missed him at the height of his prime, but from highlights and what I saw from about 1987 onward. He was one of the best to adapt to the artificial turf (Ozzie being another). He commonly played in shallow right field for left handed hitters. Very fluid fielder. I don't think he had the most range I ever saw by a 2B or anything, but he had very good range and was very sure-handed. Very good at turning the DP.
Also had an interesting backstory as a Kansas City native who literally helped build Royals Stadium, then attending the Royals Academy and basically making himself not only a useful player, but an All-Star and Gold Glover.
The data suggest Dick Stuart was so good he took balls away from Mazeroski.
Seriously, I don't see what a 1B could do to make another infielder bad, unless it's maybe not catch his bad throws.
for those of you who use composite advanced defense stats (like x% * UZR + y% * TZ + ...) - how do you weigh them? (I don't normally use them that way, but am trying to build a quick and dirty value estimator.)
***
Correct me if I'm mistaken (not unlikely in this instance), but I suspect Maz was helped by TB's FR which exaggerated the gap b/w he and other defenders (early example of the impact of saberstuff on HOF voting). Also by having a preview guide, keeping his name out there.
Well, since Mazeroski's specialty was the DP, maybe Stuart was particularly bad at the stretch?
That would only account for a tiny amount of the difference.
Possibly Mazeroski played deeper in the 1b/2b hole due to how poor Stuart was? And it caused him to miss chances, or have further to go to 2b to turn the pivot?
Just spitballing here.
You're going far enough back in time that there's no location data, except for possibly some very, very limited data distinguishing singles to right field from singles to center or left. In that case, what you'd most likely end up with is some very crude way of assigning blame for singles to right field to both the 1B and 2B, which would, in effect, assume that the 1B and 2B were somewhat equal in their fielding abilities. In a case with a huge divergence in actual ability, then, such a system would over-value the bad fielder (Stuart) and under-value the good fielder (Maz).
If, say, opponents hit 200 singles to RF off of the Pirates, and for an average team you'd split those 100/100 between the 1B/2B, maybe the reality is that Maz allowed 70 singles, but Stuart allowed 130. In that case, Maz's #'s would be under-stated by 30 plays (~20 runs?), and Stuart's would be overstated by a similar 30 plays (~20 runs). I'm just making up numbers in this paragrah, obviously. (EDIT: Obviously, the Pirates RF (Clemente) would be involved in all of this as well.)
Well then, if Maz, why not Keith Hernandez?
Stuart wouldn't make Maz look bad if you were just watching the games. Then you'd see just how bad Stuart was. But in the stats, it's pretty easy.
For example: A great play by Maz, Stuart drops the throw.
1. If this is scored an infield single, then that's an opportunity for Maz that he didn't convert. It makes him look bad.
2. If this is an error on Stuart, then it doesn't impact Maz negatively, but it also does not help his rating positively. With a better first baseman, such a play is made and adds positive credits to Maz's fielding record. Enough plays like this and the effect could be noticeable.
3. This isn't something 1960's Totalzone will pick up on, since the fielder who picks up hits is unknown, but affects team defense: Playing with Stuart, Mazeroski probably had to play closer to the 3/4 hole, and doing so would result in more hits to center field.
Because second base is a position that requires defensive acumen, while 1B is where they try to minimize the damage of having Dick Stuart Bearing Glove in the lineup.
I didn't see Maz play either; best I've ever seen was Mike Gallego.
It's harder to accept an argument for defense at an offense-first position.
A 1B makes hay with his range (*) and his scoops (**), as opposed to his arm. It's easier for players to do that.
(*) And since he's holding runners on frequently, he's playing in a lot, which means that even if one of his skills is range, there's a limit to how useful it is.
(**) And I'm skeptical of how much better than average one can be at scooping. And how useful the skill really is: a lot of the scoops come on rushed throws, and the reason the fielder is rushing the throw is that the runner has a good chance to be safe already.
Well, that's the obvious (and I'm sure an accurate) answer, but not really an adequate one on the merits. Just because you can (and teams do) hide horrendous defensive players at 1B because they can hit the ball doesn't mean a really great defensive first baseman isn't a very valuable asset, and especially when we're talking about the guy with the "greatest fielding first baseman of all-time" rep.
I think the real answer -- on the merits -- is the one that Bill James gave a long time ago to the whole "if X, then why not Y" line of argument in HOF discussions: it's an argument we should be very wary of, because it can (and usually does) end up justifying a progressive lowering of the HOF standards, by using some of the worst decisions as the basis for making yet more bad ones. If Maz, then Hernandez . . . but Maz was probably a mistake. So we shouldn't use him as the standard for future decisions.
At age 20 he hits .283 with a 96 OPS+. At 21, .275, a career high 19 homers, and 98 OPS+. If I saw a hitter today who was just a tick below average at age 20-21, I'd be pretty optimistic about his future as a hitter.
Mazeroski never had an above average hitting year, and finished with 84.
Looking at players who had an OPS+ between 90-100 for ages 20-21, there are 15. Some turned out quite well as hitters: Buddy Bell, Bobby Doerr, Travis Jackson, Roberto Clemente, Ivan Rodriguez, Ted Simmons, Sammy Sosa. Some I've never heard of. One, Frankie Gustine, also played middle infield for the Pirates, and wound up about as bad a hitter as Maz (87 OPS+). He didn't make up for it with the glove though (-51 TZ).
As someone who doesn't view the HoF the way our HoM voters do, I disagree. I don't have a problem with a Hall of Fame that includes the consensus best defensive player at a defense-first position like second base (or SS or catcher) while not doing so at an offense-first position like first. Simiarly, the best-hitting leftfielder is an obvious HoFer while the best-hitting pitcher is not.
Now, you can make a case that Hernandez does belong. But the fact that he's the best-ever defensive first baseman is, to me, just a part of his overall case. Obviously, plenty of others can and will disagree.
I don't get that at all. I don't care whether the "position" is perceived as "offense first" or not. The player brings value based on how well he plays defensively, and with the bat in his hand. If he fields like Ozzie Smith but hits like Bill Bergen, the fact that the position requires a strong defender doesn't make his offensive ineptitude any less relevant to assessing his contribution.
For me, the weighting changes -- defense is more important to Mazeroski or Ozzie Smith's case -- but defense is still just "a part of his overall case," the same way (conceptually) that it is for Keith Hernandez.
Clearly, the instance of the pitcher is different -- because offense is 99% irrelevant to a pitcher's job description. But that just isn't true for any other player (except, I suppose, a DH for whom defense is irrelevant). But position players? I just don't see creating any special rule or approach based on the perception of the position. It's an assessment of the player's contribution.
I'm tired of all these bloggers like Jeff Zimmerman, Murray Chass, and Albert Beller not checking their facts.
As a rule of thumb, it's hard to see a 1B having more impact than +/- 10 runs per year. I suppose theoretically a player could be worse than that, a 1B who could never handle a throw across the infield would cause his team 1000+ plays per year, but realistically, nobody at the professional level will be anywhere near that bad.
Hernandez has the best career TZ rating at +117, and rates at the top on just about every other system I've seen on 1B defense. That works out to +8 per year, so it's in my comfort range to start with. Beyond that, Keith Hernandez was so good at 1B defense that he challenged your assumption of how much impact a 1B could have. With him, the sacrifice bunt was far from an automatic, he very often got the lead runner. I understand this could be just more amazing than valuable, it is possible that by scaring the other team from bunting they did more damage swinging away anyway.
His defense is the added bonus that puts him into the HOF discussion. A Rico Brogna or Lyle Overbay, even if they were as good fielding as Hernandez, would not be in the discussion. Keith's offense is still the meat of his case. High OBP guys don't alway get the recognition power guys do, but Keith had more batting runs (+330) than Jim Rice (+279) or Orlando Cepeda (+321).
Full lists here:
Humpheys DRA
Because Gil Hodges, not Keith Hernandez, was the greatest fielding first baseman of all time?
But I'd bet anything I own, and anything that anyone reading this owns, that neither Maz nor White was 300 runs better than Randolph on the field.
As hitters Randolph was 328 runs better than Maz, and 321 better than White.
Can they go in as an entry, the way horses do as a betting interest at the race track? 1 and 1A, for the Veterans Committee.
The reason for "not Hernandez" is that the best glove men at first base almost certainly almost all played during the dead ball era, when pouncing on bunts was a requirement for the position. That held over into the 1930s, and later in the NL, where the influential John McGraw never did adjust to the idea of the Gehrig/Foxx 1b. If you look up Harry Heilmann, for example, you will wonder why on earth his managers never moved him to first. The reason was that he could not play first against the hitters of the time, because only a few of them were homer hitters. There were still too many bunters out there. Bad as Harry was as an outfielder, and he was in Manny territory, the requirements of the time prohibited him from playing 1b, much less DH, which would have been his natural position. Even as late as the 1960s, there were people like Bill White, Wes Parker and Vic Power, all of whom had better defensive reps than Hernandez. Hernandez dominated his time period because, essentially, there was no one else out there who could play 1b like that any more. But history goes back a lot longer than his, or even Hodges' career.
- Brock Hanke
Maz only received 6.1% of the HOF vote in '78, gained a little the next few years before falling back to 6.7% in '82. Then in '83 his % almost doubled to 12.8%, jumped again to over 18% in '84 and steadily climbed up to 42% in his last year on the ballot in '92.
What happened? Pete Palmer and John Thorn and a book called The Hidden Game of Baseball (came out in '84). This was when Linear Weights was unleashed on the world (for better or worse!)- the book had Mazeroski listed as not just the best fielding second sacker ever, but the best fielder ever, period. The number of runs it had him saving defensively over an average second baseman was something like 350 runs, an absolutely huge figure. Even with his below-average offensive numbers, this made his overall contribution almost 40 wins above an average second baseman (the WAR equivalent today would probably be in the neighborhood of 60 WAR overall, clearly in the HOF range of discussion).
The book really did influence some of the BBWAA community and got Maz a significant boost in his vote totals, and apparently the Veterans Committee bought the idea as well. The '60 Series heroics also didn't hurt! If you are THE best fielder ever, and you also hit about as big a clutch HR as there is - that can punch your ticket to the HOF.
Of course, looking back on things now, we know that whereas the offensive component of Linear Weights has seemed to pretty much stand the test of time - batting runs are still well accepted today - the defensive side of Linear Weights has been completely overthrown by newer metrics such as TZR, UZR, etc. Most recent defensive measurement systems have concluded that Linear Weights was overstating the value of putouts and that DPs were essentially being weighted well, doubly. There were also contextual problems with things like groundball pitchers vs. flyball pitchers and stuff like that. If you look at defensive measurements today, Maz is listed at about 150 runs above average, not 350 runs. Still #1 among all second basemen, but nowhere near the level Hidden Game (and the Total Baseball encyclopedias)had him at. Based on today's defensive measures I don't see how you could make much of a case for Maz as a HOF player, but hindsight is 20/20, you know.
That being said - I saw Maz play in his prime and he was about as good as it gets. He was so quick turning the double play they called him "no hands" - because he could catch the throw from the SS, pivot and throw to 1st so quickly it looked like the ball never even touched his hands (much like the Larry Bird "touch" volleyball passes years later, another beautiful thing to witness). The best praise I can think of for Maz' fielding wizardry comes from none other than Frank White. In the new book "Wizardry: Baseball's All-Time Greatest Fielders" by Michael Humphreys, the author interviews Frank White. According to Frank, he never actually saw Maz play and stillthinks Maz was the best at turning two ever, just from watching him at a clinic. "He'd only seen Mazeroski giving lessons at an instructional camp many years after retirement, and couldn't believe how quickly the old man sent the ball to first..."
The Ellis / Tulo keystone combo in Colorado almost makes me want the Rockies to make a charge, just so those guys can put on a show in the playoffs.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main