Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Posted: **Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:56 am**

bachslunch wrote:There are in fact several BBHoF deserving players who have gotten unceremoniously dumped off the writers' ballot early, including Grich, Lou Whitaker, Ted Simmons, Dwight Evans, and Ron Santo. In most all cases, the voters didn't make adjustments for position played, era played, or both. Or the players were great at things that the voters apparently don't know how to evaluate well, such as fielding, base stealing efficiency, or drawing walks.

I've read several baseball articles where they try to 'retrofit' guys like Grich and Rick Reuschel into the Hall of Fame by using advanced stats that, IMO, are imperfect for pitchers and middle infielders. Its an interesting discussion, and at the very least it points to the fact that guys like Grich and Reuschel are underrated, but I think its to much of a stretch to then say "Rick Reuschel was a Hall of Fame pitcher...you just didn't realize it during those 15 years when you watched him pitch". I kind of feel the same way about legit HOF candidates like Tim Raines and Mike Mussina...I followed baseball during these guys' entire careers, and I never really considered either of them as a Hall of Fame player. Raines had about 5 great seasons to start his career, then hung around for another decade or so, compiled some nice numbers, and now I'm being told he's a HOFer. It would be like the NFL putting Herschel Walker into the HOF for a couple good seasons early in his career, being in the league for a long time, then pointing to his career all-purpose yardage totals.

That's not to say I dismiss the backwards-looking statistical analysis completely. I think there is merit to recognizing how a guy like Ken Anderson or even Daryle Lamonica was statistically superior to his peers. But I also think there is merit to contemporary perception. If you look at Michael Irvin's stats now, you'd wonder how he got in the Hall of Fame. Low TD total, only 1 consensus All-Pro season, nowhere near the top of career leaderboards. But when he played, Irvin was always considered one of the top WRs in the game, had to face some great NFC East CBs (Allen, Williams, Green, etc.) twice a year, usually played his best when stakes were highest. Compare that to Terrell Owens...if you look at Owens' stats, he is a clear 1st ballot guy. But his contemporary perception was "he's a great talent, but...". Same kind of holds true with Art Powell.

Posted: **Wed Feb 17, 2016 9:17 am**

bachslunch wrote:. In most all cases, the voters didn't make adjustments for position played, era played, or both. Or the players were great at things that the voters apparently don't know how to evaluate well, such as fielding, base stealing efficiency, or drawing walks.

In Grich's case, it was a perfect storm of all these things. He played most of his career during a time when offense was suppressed, and his home parks were pitcher-friendly. He was a fine fielder adept at getting on base via drawing walks and getting hit by pitches. And he was one of the best hitting second basemen of his time. Grich ranks 8th all time in WAR for 2nd basemen (a catch-all stat that measures several aspects of a player's game and adjusts to ballpark and era); all but Whitaker are in the HoF and 14 HoF 2nd basemen have a lower number. That alone makes him qualified. In addition, he's 15th all time in OPS+ among 2nd basemen, a hitting stat that measures on base percentage and slugging and adjusts to ballpark and era. I maintain that Grich is one of those guys who flew under the radar as badly as Mick Tingelhoff did regarding the PFHoF.

Also add in the fact that several of the BBHoF voters aren't up to the task they're assigned to. Such folks look at only a few cursory stats often out of context, or in some cases none at all. They're easily dazzled by narrative. They decide HoFers by "feel" in a sport that lends itself well to adjusted stats use. Until recently, some of these folks had maintained their HoF voting privileges despite not covering the sport actively for years, even decades (it was a running joke for a while to see who the writers for various golf digests would vote for), though as of this past cycle, such folks have started to get cleared out of the voting bloc. And they whine like petulant toddlers in blogs and news columns about the process while producing ballots that range from puzzling to downright absurd. Fortunately that's not true for all of them, but it has been true of enough of them that it's not surprising folks like Grich have dropped off the ballot while clearly undeserving players like Jack Morris have approached enshrinement.

I feel that football has fundamentally the same problem. In Safties essentially two things are valued, Interceptions and hard hits. Particularly with LB's those who were excellent jack-of-all trade type guys get no acclaim. You have to be an outside pass rusher or an inside plugger/tackler. Derrick Brooks (literally an all time great) aside, 43 OLB's might as well not exist. I worry that Lance Briggs, for example, will never get a fair hearing. Not unlike Wilbur Marshall. Also Zach Thomas get no discussion, but I believe he's tied for most All Pro's for an eligible LB without being in the Hall, sounds like a guy you'd discuss, no?

Posted: **Wed Feb 17, 2016 9:19 am**

Bryan wrote:
bachslunch wrote:Compare that to Terrell Owens...if you look at Owens' stats, he is a clear 1st ballot guy. But his contemporary perception was "he's a great talent, but...". Same kind of holds true with Art Powell.

If what I've seen is accurate, there was a difference between Terrell Owens's "disruptiveness" (the "look at me" and "I'm a diva" type) and Art Powell's (the "we're getting second class treatment because of skin color" type). Could be wrong, perhaps.

Posted: **Wed Feb 17, 2016 9:31 am**

NWebster wrote: I feel that football has fundamentally the same problem. In Safties essentially two things are valued, Interceptions and hard hits. Particularly with LB's those who were excellent jack-of-all trade type guys get no acclaim. You have to be an outside pass rusher or an inside plugger/tackler. Derrick Brooks (literally an all time great) aside, 43 OLB's might as well not exist. I worry that Lance Briggs, for example, will never get a fair hearing. Not unlike Wilbur Marshall. Also Zach Thomas get no discussion, but I believe he's tied for most All Pro's for an eligible LB without being in the Hall, sounds like a guy you'd discuss, no?

Agreed. Defensive stats in general are problematic for me because they reward certain types of niche behavior heavily over other important things (sacks and interceptions over run stopping, tying up o-linemen, pass coverage, and pass deflections), plus tackles aren't even kept with any kind of consistent standards. To muddy the waters further, have seen thoughts elsewhere that some sack specialist OLBs such as Andre Tippett and Kevin Greene could actually play well against the run or in pass coverage but just weren't called upon to do so that often, which supposedly wasn't so true of (for example) Derrick Thomas. Quality film study on such players would say for sure.

The "hard hits" thing is narrative-based, which is another problem.

Posted: **Wed Feb 17, 2016 3:36 pm**

Bryan wrote:I followed baseball during these guys' entire careers, and I never really considered either of them as a Hall of Fame player.

I said similar to another PFRA member off the forums recently re: PFHOF. Watched these players entire careers and never considered them a HOF player yet now they're being elected and/or are on the finalists lists. Which is odd enough, but then compounded by the fact that there's players who were - to me - clear HOF'ers who aren't even in the conversation.

Posted: **Wed Feb 17, 2016 10:15 pm**

Hell no!

Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

If Eli retires now (Canton?)

Re: If Eli retires now (Canton?)

Re: If Eli retires now (Canton?)

Re: If Eli retires now (Canton?)

Re: If Eli retires now (Canton?)

Re: If Eli retires now (Canton?)

Re: If Eli retires now (Canton?)