PDA

View Full Version : MLB: Is Joe Torre a Hall of Famer (player)?


Stax
02-03-2009, 08:02 PM
Disregard Torre as a manager for a moment (where he'll almost certainly get in), is Joe Torre a Hall of Fame PLAYER? He's lingered on the Vet's Ballot for a bit, though he hasn't gotten close (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=mlb&id=3754756). My question, which originally arose as I was responding to a stupid post on MLB.com asking if Posada is a HoFer (plus I just started The Yankee Years), is summed up in this post from MLB.com:



Comparison:
Joe Torre: .297/.365/.452 (128 OPS+), .155 ISO (123 ISO+), 304.0 BtRuns (31.1 BtWins) over 8801 PA. Runners 59.1% successful against.
J. Posada: .277/.380/.477 (124 OPS+), .200 ISO (125 ISO+), 200.2 BtRuns (18.6 BtWins) over 5874 PA. Runners 70.9% successful against.

Torre was a better for-average hitter, though got on-base a bit less (however, as OPS+ shows, was certainly as and really a bit more impressive against the league). ISO/SLG appears to give Posada a power edge, but ISO+ shows that's mostly the era (not surprising). Torre was basically Posada + 3000 more PA, producing far more BtRuns (and those runs were more valuable in terms of wins given the environment, widening that gap).

Torre's only MAJOR problem in evaluating him as a HoFer is this:

C: 903 Games
1B: 787 Games
3B: 515 Games
LF: 2 Games

- As a catcher Torre stacks right up with everyone in the Hall of Fame. Amazing running-game control (over limited chances) and basically the same career length (or better) as every HoF catcher except Fisk and his offensive production stacks right up with them as well.

- As a 1B he just falls short. Most of the people with OPS+ at Torre's level have either a massive playing time edge (Jake Beckley), are converted from other positions (Ernie Banks, who I'll come back to), or both (Yaz).

- And as a 3B he's likely in. There's a TON of pretty terrible 3B in the Hall (Pie Traynor, Bobby Wallace, Freddie Lindstrom, Joe Sewell) but even cutting away that fat he slides in pretty nicely IMO.

So the issue becomes how do you balance that out? I'd say his time at 3B (where he's a HoFer) mostly cancels out the time at 1B, and his catching time finishes the job no doubt. Lets make that Ernie Banks comparison though, someone lauded as a shortstop (the closest position to catcher in terms of weak offensive production) and 1B.

Joe Torre: .297/.365/.452 (128 OPS+), .155 ISO (123 ISO+), 304.0 BtRuns (31.1 BtWins) over 8801 PA.
Ernie Banks: .274/.330/.500 (122 OPS+), .226 ISO (163 ISO+), 259.8 BtRuns (25.4 BtWins) over 10395 PA.

And Banks is actually more of a 1B than his skill position (1259 G at 1B vs 1125 at SS + 69 at 3B) where Torre is far more a skill-fielder (903 at C + 515 at 3B vs. 787 at 1B). Banks obviously has the power and playing time edge, but despite this BtRuns/Wins bears him out as a less productive player (not surprising given his worse AVG and far worse OBP)

Archangel
02-03-2009, 08:06 PM
So do you have to be good at maths to understand baseball? Because that would explain why, despite it being probably a fine and entertaining sport, I never was able to get it.

Way too many numbers.

Jericho
02-03-2009, 08:07 PM
So do you have to be good at maths to understand baseball? Because that would explain why, despite it being probably a fine and entertaining sport, I never was able to get it.

Way too many numbers.
It's easier when you pretend it's Tina Fey reading it to you

Archangel
02-03-2009, 08:11 PM
Good point.

Because I can read a 900-page book in a single night, but it will take a woman of at least Tina Fey's calibre to keep me awake after more than 30 seconds of numbers.

Stax
02-03-2009, 08:14 PM
So do you have to be good at maths to understand baseball? Because that would explain why, despite it being probably a fine and entertaining sport, I never was able to get it.

Way too many numbers.

The math behind the stats is insanely simple, actually. BtRuns is short for "Batting Runs", and is what is known as a "Linear Weight". The average value of each offensive event for that year is calculated (based on how it changes run expectancy), you multiply those weights times the number of each event a player gets, and boom BtRuns.

If that's too complex you've got the standard slash stats (Batting average, on-base percentage, and slugging percentage). OPS is On-base percentage + Slugging, and OPS+ is just OPS accounting for park-adjusted league averages (since someone playing in the modern era in Coors isn't the same as someone playing in the Polo Grounds in the 1880s) then scaled to where 100 is average (so 105 is 5% above average, 95 is 5% below, etc).

ISO is short for "Isolated Power", and is just Slugging minus Batting average, a way of removing hitting singles (which are not hitting for power) from the power measurement SLG (and ISO+ is just THAT normalized against the park-adjusted league average).

Archangel
02-03-2009, 08:17 PM
*zzz*

Sorry, what?

Stax
02-03-2009, 08:18 PM
*zzz*

Sorry, what?

http://www.moviecritic.com.au/images/tina-fey-tanktop1.jpg

Archangel
02-03-2009, 08:19 PM
Aha.

mongo
02-03-2009, 08:36 PM
this is like asking if babe ruth should get in based on his pitching stats. although amazing, it's a fucking moot point.

Stax
02-04-2009, 01:33 PM
this is like asking if babe ruth should get in based on his pitching stats. although amazing, it's a fucking moot point.

I think ol' Joe would disagree. Being in the Hall as a manager is very different from being in as a player.