I've had the unique luxury of being treated like a real live sports columnist recently. Some people who read my previous articles on this site have taken the time to share their thoughts. As you would expect, some have been positive and some have been less than flattering.
It's been really nice to note the wonderful manners each reader has displayed. Whether they were offering compliments or complaints, each person was well behaved. Even the criticisms were politely presented. Everyone closed their comments with "sincerely" or "regards". That's refreshing.
Unfortunately, those who have complained have not matched their manners with their logic.
The finest example was someone I'll refer to only as Sherman, who felt very strongly about my previously expressed opinion that Lou Brock is one of the weakest outfielders in the Hall of Fame. Sherman felt this so strongly that he sent me a total of four emails to state his case. He wasn't exactly unprompted. I think it's only proper for me to respond to anyone who takes the time to send me his thoughts. I know it's something I have always appreciated on the few occasions when I have written to an online columnist. Consequently I kept replying to Sherman, offering my thoughts about his counter-arguments. Most people would have let it go at that.
As it happens, Sherman was different. He was simply tenacious, refusing to let my comments go without re-stating his case, usually with a new wrinkle or two thrown in for good measure. He did this even when I started one email with, "This is a very interesting debate, but I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree." I really admire his persistence.
If only his arguments made any sense. Let me give you a flavor of Sherman.
"Tony Gwynn has won 8 batting titles in his career which looks great on the surface but after he became overweight and stole less bases after 1987 a hitter's year he had trouble scoring much more than 70 runs a year for the next 9 years. After one great year in 1997 he held on to get 3000 hits. I always thought he was overrated and would rather have Lou Brock on my team because he produced. Gwynn's on base percentage was 40 points higher and he had a 120 more hits than Brock but scored well over 200 runs less than Brock. Yet, you think he is better than Brock and would make your team win more if you had him versus having Lou Brock especially in an era where it is easier to hit and score runs."
This quote is a great example of the flawed logic employed by both Sherman and a large percentage of the Baseball Writer's Association of America.
Let me make a couple of points for the sake of clarification. First, please excuse the punctuation and syntax errors. I'm sure Sherman was typing in a hurry. Next, Tony Gwynn had never been mentioned in our brief correspondence before Sherman dropped his name in the above quote, so I'm not sure where he got the idea that I "think he is better than Brock". However, it doesn't really matter because he's right; I DO think Gwynn was better than Brock, by far. In addition, I should note that Sherman made the point several times that Brock was exceptional at reaching scoring position and scoring runs, hence his mention of Gwynn's poor run totals after his weight gain.
I am assuming that Sherman is using run scoring as a synonym for "production".
Let me now make public what I tried to tell Sherman privately - he picked the wrong guy to compare to Brock. At least, that's true if he was trying to make Brock look good.
We don't really need a pile of sabermetrics to determine this either. Plain, traditional baseball logic will do nicely. For instance, is it fair to use runs scored as your measurement for production when comparing a leadoff hitter to someone who traditionally hit second, third or lower? Of course not. Any leadoff hitter on teams of the quality Brock played for would score a lot of runs. I could just as easily point out that Gwynn compiled over 200 more RBI than Brock and did so in almost 200 fewer games, so therefore he must have been more "productive" than Brock. It's an equally true, and equally misleading, statement.
To be fair, we need to compare their roles. Gwynn batted lower in the order and was expected to provide some punch and drive in some runs. In comparison to Brock, he did that, by posting a better slugging percentage and reaching the RBI totals mentioned previously. So, did Brock do his job? No, he didn't, at least not when compared to Gwynn. Gwynn got on base at a much better rate. In fact, using Sherman's own questionable method of measuring a player by the number of times he reached scoring position all on his own - by steal, or extra base hit - Gwynn actually scored runs at a better rate too. While Brock reached scoring position about 50% more than Gwynn, he scored only 16% more runs.
Sherman anticipates part of this problem by pointing out that Brock played during a more difficult time period for hitters. Very true, but not as much as you would think. Brock played for teams that averaged about 4.1 runs per game. From the beginning of his career until 1994, Gwynn's teams actually averaged LESS than that. Overall they totaled 4.25 runs per game, but only because of the enormous explosion of offense in the years Sherman himself concedes were the twilight of Gwynn's career. To level out the small remaining difference, it has to be noted that Brock played in home ballparks that were either neutral (Busch) or wildly in favor of hitters (Wrigley and Sportsman's). As you may know, Jack Murphy Stadium, Gwynn's home field his entire career, was very much a pitcher's park.
Once the ballparks are accounted for, plus the fact that Brock played for much better teams on average, you can pretty much look at each player's numbers without adjusting them. Doing so would reveal that Gwynn - in almost 200 fewer games and over 1000 fewer plate appearances - compiled more hits, a higher slugging percentage, more walks, and a better rate for both scoring runs and driving them in. In short, Gwynn was a far superior offensive contributor.
There is also no contest when we turn to defense. In 180 fewer games Gwynn compiled more putouts, more assists, better range, and a vastly better fielding percentage (.987 to .959). He earned - and I do mean EARNED - five Gold Gloves, while Brock was essentially providing the template for poor outfield play that Lonnie Smith later followed.
In other words, it's impossible to conclude that Brock was better than Gwynn. He wasn't even close.
All of this is further proof of the main point of my original article. Specifically, voters for the Hall of Fame, much like wild animals, are distracted by shiny objects. Generally that means the 3,000 hit plateau that Brock passed. In this case, since Gwynn is also a member of that club, stolen bases shine the brightest. Lou Brock had a lot of them, so he's given an inordinate amount of credit for his other deficient skills as a baseball player. That translated to a first ballot election and a very respectable percentage of the vote. I won't be at all surprised in five years when Tony Gwynn's vote total is announced if it's a lower percentage than Brock received.
I'm sorry, Sherman, but that still won't make you right. I can't say it any more politely than that.
» You can read more of Paul's work at www.lostinleftfield.com.
Also by Paul White
» My 2002 Hall of Fame Ballot: The Also Rans
» My 2002 Hall of Fame Ballot: Two Right Fielders
» My 2002 Hall of Fame Ballot: Slot #5, Rich Gossage
» My 2002 Hall of Fame Ballot - The Starters I Left Behind
» My 2002 Hall of Fame Ballot: Slot #4, Jim Rice
» My 2002 Hall of Fame Ballot: Trammell & Smith
» My 2002 Hall of Fame Ballot: Slot #1, Gary Carter
» Happy Birthday Bob Elliott
» 3,000 Hits That Don't Belong in Cooperstown
» Frankie Frisch's Sad Legacy: The Cheapening of The Hall of Fame
» Babe's MVP Snubs
» The Schalk-Schang Redemption: Two Men Who Prove That The Hall of Fame Veterans Committee Was a Sham
» Being Tony Muser
» More submissions
Copyright © 2002 by Paul White. Posted January 30, 2002.
BALLPLAYERS | TEAMS | CHRONOLOGY | TODAY | BOOKS | NEWSLETTER | ERRATA | FAQ
