COG ’58 Results Part 1: Walkover for Man of Steal
Rickey Henderson, #1 in major league history in career runs scored and stolen bases, and #2 in walks, was a runaway winner in the most recent round of voting for the Circle of Greats. Henderson becomes the 11th inductee into the Circle. More on Rickey and the voting will miraculously appear if you click on “Read the rest of this entry”.
Measurements such as baseball-reference’s Wins Above Replacement (WAR) rate Rickey Henderson very highly. Rickey is one of only 19 everyday players in major league history to accumulate 100 or more career WAR, and one of only 19 everyday players to accumulate over 110 WAR in the Fangraphs version (yes, they are the same 19 players, except that b-ref includes Nap Lajoie while Fangraphs includes Jimmie Foxx).
But Rickey gets to that level in a marvelously unique way. Henderson’s career OPS+ was 127. Among players who played a corner outfield position more than any other position and ended with a career OPS+ under 130, here are the leaders in career WAR (b-ref version):
1. Rickey Henderson 106.8
2. Tim Raines 66.2
3. Dwight Evans 62.8
4. Goose Goslin 61.0
5. Andre Dawson 60.6
Rickey’s career slugging percentage (SLG) was .419. Among players who played a corner outfield position more than any other position and hold a career SLG of .420 or less , here are the career leaders in WAR (b-ref version):
1. Rickey Henderson 106.8
2. Ichiro Suzuki 54.6
3. Jose Cruz 51.0
4. Willie Keeler 50.7
5. Harry Hooper 49.4
Rickey’s career SLG was not at a level that one would expect of an all-time-great corner outfielder. Yet he did hit 297 career homers. Most career home runs by a player with a career SLG of .420 or less:
1. Rickey Henderson 297
2. Deron Johnson 245
3. Ron Fairly 215
4. Bob Bailey 189
5. B.J. Surhoff 188
Certainly, one reason that Rickey’s rate stats are lower than might be expected for a player of his position and achievement is that he played a very long time beyond his peak, dragging his career averages down (even though his peak was long, too). But even taking the effect of a long decline-phase into account, Henderson’s route to greatness was a unique and deeply creative combination of iron discipline at the plate, bravura mastery of the art of the stolen base, unexpected home run power, and the will to remain both productive and hungry enough to be the only non-pitcher in MLB history to play 25 seasons in the NL and/or AL. Like Babe Ruth, Rickey was both audacious and talented enough to take baseball not as he found it but to bend it in new directions.
*******************
Despite the strength of Rickey’s support this round, Wade Boggs received enough love in his first appearance on the ballot to top the 50% support level, gaining four rounds of assured eligibility. The one-two punch of Henderson and Boggs prevented anyone else from topping the 25% level, and a couple of long-standing holdovers, John Smoltz and Craig Biggio, by falling short of 10% actually had to use up one of their accumulated eligibility years this round — a rare occurrence in previous COG voting for long-time holdovers. But Smoltz and Biggio both still have years of stored eligibility remaining.
Kenny Lofton and Kevin Brown returned to the ballot as the result of redemption-round success, and both generated enough support to remain alive another round. Lofton found more support than he ever received in the five rounds he was on the ballot in his first period of eligibility, before falling off after the 1963 round. Is the greater support for Kenny a temporary result of the increased attention from his recent redemption-round victory, or does it reflect a longer-lasting reconsideration of his value? An interesting question to keep an eye on going forward.
As always, you can check out the complete voting record for this past round at Google Docs. The link is here: 1958-Pt 1 COG Vote Tally
The Circle of Greats membership thus far:
Jeff Bagwell
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Rickey Henderson
Randy Johnson
Greg Maddux
Mike Mussina
Mike Piazza
Cal Ripken, Jr.
Curt Schilling
Frank Thomas
Subscribe to: RSS feed
“Is the greater support for Kenny a temporary result of the increased attention from his recent redemption-round victory, or does it reflect a longer-lasting reconsideration of his value?”
Or a growing movement to get as many people as possible over the 10% threshold every year?
There’s that, too, but Lofton was right around 20%, about double what was needed to merely survive, so there was clearly something more going on than just keping him on the ballot. Kevin Brown, in contrast, definitely benefited from the specific interest in keeping his name on the ballot. Luckily, the owners of these internet tubes do not charge extra for a longer ballot, so more choice rather than less choice generally seems a good thing, if folks want to use one or more of their three spots to keep the ballots long. Part of the reason there are three spots on a ballot is to give voters options as to how to use those spots.
Agreed, there was definitely more to Lofton than the 10% threshold. There seems to be some notion that center fielders should be evaluated separately from other outfield positions. I don’t disagree with it by positional difficulty but many center fielders naturally age to a corner outfield position. Although I would value their defensive contributions higher during the time in center (DWAR already does this), I would not judge their careers as inferior to a player who lasted longer in center before giving way. If Lofton is only compared to “center fielders” rather than “outfielders”, he gets a much bigger bump.
The big question with Lofton for me is about how good his defense REALLY was. Here are his defensive runs via Total Zone for the years 1992-1999:
18
18
13
8
4
18
18
12
And via Defensive Regression Analysis (DRA), here are the numbers for those same seasons:
10
0
-1
-3
8
9
-9
-1
That’s a difference of 96 runs, in just those 9 years. In other words, it’s basically 10 WAR. So was Kenny Lofton a 65-win player with a marvelous peak, or a 55-win player with a modest peak? To me, those are VERY different players. And so I’m just not sold on his value. That being said, he’s #8 on my list right now, using my own statistical analysis which uses bWAR, so it’s not like I’m holding him off the ballot for this reason. It’s just that, if he WERE borderline, I would consider holding him off, just because I’m unsure what to make of his defense.
Doom, I respect your opinion, but to me this is absolutely no different than questioning Larry Walker’s Coors stats. And you’ve definitely taken people to task for that, so I’m within my rights to question why you’re doing something similar to Lofton.
How relevant was/is DRA? WHY was/is it relevant? This is only the second time I’ve ever heard of it, and the first time is when you initially mentioned it re Lofton. Was Baseball Gauge WAR that relevant when it was relevant? Because now they’re using rWAR as their WAR, Bill James’ Win Shares, and Hardball Times’ Win Shares above Bench, so I don’t even see the DRA thing you’re talking about. It’s not even listed on a player page on Baseball Gauge, is it?
Why is it you question his stats when the eye test agrees that Lofton was out there catching everything? Were you watching baseball in Lofton’s early prime (you could be younger than I’m thinking, so that’s actually a fair question–don’t take it as an insult) ? Lofton was pretty clearly the fastest man in baseball in the early ’90s, so questioning the zone ratings of a once-a-generation-fast CF with good instincts seems strange.
Don’t I have the right to also question Larry Walker’s defensive numbers? Walker finished with 94 Rfield runs. I can call bullshit on that just as easily. But I don’t, because Walker, like Lofton, was clearly a superior defensive player to anyone who saw him play.
I’d love to hear what your eyes saw with Lofton to question whether or not he was a great fielder.
Also, it seems you’re questioning Total Zone a lot. Have you looked at the career leaderboard for TZ runs? It’s a veritable who’s-who of defensive greats. The names at the top of the list, at least to me, give TZ a lot of creedence. When the first five names off the top are Brooks Robinson, Andruw Jones, Mark Belanger, Ozzie Smith, and Roberto Clemente, what’s not to like?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/tz_runs_total_tf_career.shtml
bstar, I agree 100% that it’s no different from questioning Larry Walker’s stats. The difference for me is that I see Walker as being far enough above the line (among the players we’re talking about, anyway) that even IF I deduct for Coors as people suggest, I’d include him anyway.
I think DRA is relevant because, like TotalZone, it uses publicly available data. I read the book on how it’s calculated, which means I’m more familiar with the methodology than with TotalZone, so I can understand where it’s coming from. (As an aside, it IS still available on The Baseball Gauge, on the player pages, under “Defensive Stats” or something).
I’m questioning because I started really paying attention to baseball in the 1997 season, which is when I was 10 (I was born in November 1986). The first World Series I have a good memory of is that Marlins-Indians one, though I do vaguely remember the 1996 Series. So I do not remember Lofton from that time. I’m questioning the stuff because that’s what we often do; we look at the data we have, and we ask questions. And I don’t think it’s an unreasonable one.
As for questioning Walker, go ahead. I’m all for it. Question everyone. But I think it’s best to have a reason to do so. With Walker, I’ve found answers that satisfy me. I’m just saying that I’m not sure about Lofton yet. Why crucify me for saying that I’m considering. You’ll notice that I didn’t say I thought Lofton was a bad player; I’m just wondering if he was as good as it seems.
As for TotalZone’s leaderboard, there are two fallacies at work there. First, if you look at a DRA leaderboard, while you see some different names (Art Fletcher at #2, for example) Joe Tinker is #1, Clemente is #3 all-time, Speaker at #4. Andruw Jones is #10, Brooksie is #14 (and, interestingly, behind Mike Schmidt). I mean, those are fairly consistent. And the differences are perhaps not covered enough by era adjustments, which is something to consider. But nonetheless, the names at the top look about the same. But that leads to the other fallacy. What about sorting the best hitters ever by RBI? Doesn’t that pretty much do the trick? Aaron, Mays, Ruth, Bonds… I mean, those guys are the best, right? So what’s wrong with RBI? Just because something yields the right result, doesn’t mean that it’s the best measure.
Also, players you’ve mentioned, with TZ runs, then DRA runs:
Vacuum: 293, 193
Jones: 242, 205
Belanger: 241, 199
Smith: 239, 147
Clemente: 205, 255
So maybe I should fudge Lofton’s numbers up by 25% (in the book, Smith was particularly noted as a player that DRA may have underestimated, or perhaps that he was simply overrated in his time because of flashy play). Still, we’re not that certain about measuring defense. I just think it’s POSSIBLE that TotalZone is incorrect, and there’s a systematized measure which calls TZ’s results into question. With defensive stats, I like to look at as many things as I can. If I had UZR or DRS for those seasons, I’d look at those, too. But I don’t. So I look at what I have.
I think Walker’s defensive metrics are equally weird aren’t they? Outfielder’s dWAR (and it’s base components) are voodoo science to me. I refuse to believe that Walker was 30 wins over his career better defensively than Sheffield.
Doom, thanks for the response. Good explanation. A couple of comments, though:
1. If Larry Walker is “so far above the line” that questioning his Coors numbers is irrelevant, why isn’t Lofton far enough over that same line? Lofton has 65 WAR, Walker 70. If you can take 10 WAR off Lofton’s total (wow), my oh my I can easily slice 15 off of the Coors Kid’s total. And then we’ve got two 55 WAR players.
2. Total honesty here—I don’t think you’d be questioning Lofton’s defensive ability if you’d seen him play in his prime.
3. I wasn’t crucifying you, just questioning. It’s just the way I write that makes it seem like I’m seething mad. I’m working on it, though.
4. Big difference between RBI and runs saved. Runs saved (from whatever metric you choose) is THE ultimate defensive stat–it’s exactly what we want to know. How many runs, and then wins, was this player worth from a defensive perspective? Runs saved is not the crude counting stat you’re suggesting. It IS context-adjusted.
RBI is context-dependent and relies on contribution from others on the team and opportunity with men on base. If you’re looking for an offensive comparison to TZ runs, it would be Rbat, not RBI.
5. “and the differences are perhaps not covered enough by era adjustments.” Can you explain this in more detail?
6. If Baseball Gauge thought DRA was better than TZ, wouldn’t they use it in their pre-DRS years instead of TZ for their WAR calculation? Doesn’t it speak volumes that it’s listed separately and is not a part of their WAR?
7. We can at least check and see if UZR and DRS line up with Lofton’s TZ numbers post-2001 and post-2002, respectively.
Lofton UZR 2002-2007: -4.6 runs
Lofton TZ 2002-2007: -8 runs
Lofton DRS 2003-2007: -16 runs
Lofton TZ 2003-2007: -13 runs
It looks to me like UZR, DRS, and TZ are all on the same page with Lofton late in his career. So, to me, that suggests pretty strongly that UZR and DRS would agree with TZ in Lofton’s earlier years also. That’s no guarantee, but it seems likely.
bstar,
Okay, I’ll try to tackle these quickly, so these posts don’t just keep getting longer.
1. Like I said, Lofton is far enough above the line for the HOF. What I’m saying is that for the CoG, Walker is above the line, Lofton is below it (for now), because there’s the pesky issue of Kevin Brown, Edgar Martinez, Alan Trammell, etc., who I see falling between the two.
2. You may be right about Lofton’s defensive ability. But I didn’t so I ask. Just as people ask those questions about players from all sorts of older eras.
3. Sorry for misinterpreting your tone. It seemed accusatory, but I don’t hold it against you. What makes this community great is respectful dialogue. That ceases when people stop being respectful, or stop dialoguing. You have done neither. But I sincerely appreciate your apology.
4. I understand about RBI. That was my point. MANY statistics lump the top players at the top, even deeply flawed stats like RBI. The point is that the top players of all time are often SO far above others that even sorting by a BAD stat, the best come out on top. It was meant to be a refuting of your argument that the best reputations are on top. That happens with bad stats, too, so doesn’t serve as proof in se.
5. My question in regards to era is that DRA may not make adequate adjustments for a game that had a lot more groundballs to the infield, particularly to the shortstop. This MAY have caused an overrating of shortstops of this era, and may not be properly adjusted for. Some of the top SS of all time (according to DRA) had relatively short careers in the Deadball era.
6. Baseball Gauge DID use DRA in their WAR calculation. Dan (the founder of the site) changed so as to bring down the number of different WAR calculations on the internet, and since the defensive component was the only difference, he just eliminated it so as to create some unity.
7. I am inclined to agree with you about Lofton’s career in its entirety. I was just raising a question because it surprises me. And I agree – I wish we had real Zone or play-by-play for the early-1990s. That would make for good comparison. But frankly, I don’t think we can assume that TZ and UZR would agree about things in those years, because there were many players (back when b-r used TZ for defense) that TZ and UZR disagreed about.
Again, I’m inclined to call Lofton one of the greatest 20 CFs to play the game. Probably one of the best 15. I’m not sure about one of the best 10. Definitely not one of the best 5. So his place is pretty set. I think probably HOF. But again, I’m just inclined to say “no” in the CoG for now. Thanks for the discussion!
Well, good on Dan for doing something for unity’s sake. The lack thereof is killing WAR’s acceptance as a mainstream stat.
We’ve got a great five-man rotation in the CoG. Now if we vote for Boggs this round, one of the three 2B holdovers (or Lou Whitaker) after that, and then Larry Walker or Tony Gwynn, we’d have a hell of a team. Bonds and Rickey both seem capable of playing center, which gives us a lineup something like this.
1. Henderson, lf
2. Boggs, 3b
3. Bonds, cf
4. Thomas, dh
5. Bagwell, 1b
6. Walker, rf
7. Piazza, c
8. Ripken, ss
9. Whitaker/Sandberg/Alomar/Biggio, 2b
A little RH-heavy, but I’d take my chances with this team against any other 13 consecutive choices to come.
Neither were able to stick in center despite excellent speed. Both had poor reactions off the bat and were never good with the leather. I’d probably put walker there over bonds/henderson
The greatest play I ever saw Barry Bonds make… wasn’t actually by Barry Bonds. I’ll explain: it’s 1-0 to San Francisco in PETCO Park circa 2006. It’s the late innings and the Padres have a man on first. The San Diego batter lashes a ball into left-field. Sure-fire double. The Padres are definitely going to tie the score. But what’s this? Bonds, getting a good jump, sprints to his right, lays out and makes an incredible diving catch to make the out. My complete astonishment subsides somewhat when I peer a bit closer and realise that the player in question is, in fact, late-inning defensive replacement Todd Linden.
Yeah…gonna be taking Tony Gwynn in rf, sorry. Larry Walker is awesome…at home…when home is Coors field just like every other decent player that ever played in Coors and had career years there. Honestly, Lets for arguments sake keep LW in Montreal for his entire career I don’t think his name is ever mentioned.
I hope, for your sake, you’re trolling.