Andruw's struggles not helping his case for Hall

Andruw Jones' career has hit a wall. In 2007 he hit .222 with a .311 on-base percentage. In the early going this season he is hitting .167 with a .274 on-base percentage.

Jones was recently regarded as a likely Hall of Famer. All he had to do was keep up decent production numbers into his mid 30s and keep playing solid defense in centerfield. His career path matches up favorably to several Hall of Fame hitters. Frank Robinson is the most similar hitter to Jones through age 30. Eddie Matthews, Johnny Bench, Al Kaline and Duke Snider are all in Andruw's top 10 most similar through 30.
Through 2006 Jones had been above average offensively, posting an OPS above 93 every full season in the big leagues and failing to achieve 100 only twice. Also, of course, conventional wisdom is that Jones has been one of if not the best defensive outfielder of all time — something the statistics support.

In light of Andruw's recent performance with the bat and the fact that the stats seems to show his defense isn't quite as great as it once was, what do we make of his Hall of Fame chances?

If we ignore career path and just look at career similarity scores, Jones doesn't look all that impressive with the bat, at least when we're talking Hall of Fame. His closest match is Rocky Colavito. Number two is Ron Gant. Number three is Reggie Sanders. A solid group, but nothing special.

However, Andruw probably was never going to make the Hall of Fame on the merits of his hitting alone. As we all know, Andruw is regarded as an amazing fielder, or at least was in his prime. Jones has won a Gold Glove every season since 1998. His career range factor per game is 0.78 points above the league average for players at his position. His range factor per nine innings is 0.57 points above the league average.

Now the question becomes did Andruw perform at a high level for a long enough period? Andruw was a solid hitter for 10 seasons. If we judge by range factor, his defense didn't start to drop off from outstanding to solid until around 2004-2005. That's seven or eight seasons as an elite fielder, and of course he spent most of that time as a centerfielder.

I suspect when Andruw retires most voters will naturally look at players like Bill Mazeroski and Ozzie Smith when evaluating Andruw's worthiness. Smith played for 19 seasons and was never close to Andruw with the bat. Mazeroski may have been worse than Smith with the bat and played 17 seasons.

Mazeroski is probably the most similar to Jones if we are looking at overall value. Mazeroski is regarded as the best defensive second baseman of all time and played 100 games in a season in 13 seasons. Because of his offensive downturn, it's looking more and more possible that Jones may not contribute to his teams beyond a decade or so.

But does Mazeroski have an edge on Jones defensively, and is that edge enough to offset Jones' offensive contributions? I don't think so. If a player is a Ron Gant/Reggie Sanders type hitter for ten years and a Bill Mazeroski/Ozzie Smith type fielder for seven or eight seasons, I would consider that player a Hall of Famer.

Of course, the voters love milestones and Jones already has 368 homers, over 1,000 RBI and runs scored and close to 1,700 hits. Even if he's a subpar hitter for the next couple seasons, he'll likely add to those numbers. Plus the voters will remember his glove and his Gold Gloves. He likely won't get in on the first ballot but my guess is he'll eventually get in with relative ease.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/8...-case-for-Hall

Where's the "If he kept up his current pace for a few more years" option? I don't think he absolutely was having a Hall of Fame career, but if he kept it up, he would've been a good HOF choice, but not marginal...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Where's the "If he kept up his current pace for a few more years" option? I don't think he absolutely was having a Hall of Fame career, but if he kept it up, he would've been a good HOF choice, but not marginal...

---

i forgot to add it...

The whole thing is ubsurd. Sure, if he kept up hitting 30 HR"s per for another 12 years I guess??? Yeah, and last years ROY Pedroia had what 150 hits? If he goes another 33 years at that pace, he'll have over 5000 and possibly pass Pete Rose. :rolleyes:

Jones is a solid player, not a HOF'er.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

The whole thing is ubsurd. Sure, if he kept up hitting 30 HR"s per for another 12 years I guess??? Yeah, and last years ROY Pedroia had what 150 hits? If he goes another 33 years at that pace, he'll have over 5000 and possibly pass Pete Rose. :rolleyes:

Jones is a solid player, not a HOF'er.

---

You need to take into account his OUTSTANDING defense in center field. That's what would've put him over the top in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

The whole thing is ubsurd. Sure, if he kept up hitting 30 HR"s per for another 12 years I guess??? Yeah, and last years ROY Pedroia had what 150 hits? If he goes another 33 years at that pace, he'll have over 5000 and possibly pass Pete Rose. :rolleyes:

Jones is a solid player, not a HOF'er.

---

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wassit3

i forgot to add it...

---

I put it in

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I put it in

---

y kant users/posters do that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wassit3

y kant users/posters do that?

---

Only mods can edit polls

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Only mods can edit polls

---

that's obvious hgm i was asking why as in is there a particular reason why posters aren't allowed to edit their own polls??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wassit3

that's obvious hgm i was asking why as in is there a particular reason why posters aren't allowed to edit their own polls??

---

I don't know why...that's how vBulletin is set up? lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I don't know why...that's how vBulletin is set up? lol

---

oh, thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

You need to take into account his OUTSTANDING defense in center field. That's what would've put him over the top in my opinion.

---

eh... I don't really disagree, but the value of defense... Especially in the modern age

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

eh... I don't really disagree, but the value of defense... Especially in the modern age

---

Center field defense is valuable...in any age..

I'm not saying that it isn't, but especially in today's game the best fielders simply can't make up a run differential on defense. It certainly helps, but...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

I'm not saying that it isn't, but especially in today's game the best fielders simply can't make up a run differential on defense. It certainly helps, but...

---

Well, what do you make "make up a run differential"? Andruw Jones in his prime wasn't "making up" anything...he was adding outstanding defense to strong hitting.

And his hitting seems to have disappeared. His defense seems to have remained at the same above average level at least, but those saved runs can't make up for the loss of run production.

Anyway, let's pretend that his offensive production hasn't dropped off. How long should we give him? 5 additional years of slightly above average performance? If you give that to any of a few hundred players throughout history, that makes them instand hall of famers as well... that and he's always had a slight durability problem anyway.
I don't know, I might have put him in the "marginal" category with another year or two of good offense. That's probably as far as I would have gone, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

And his hitting seems to have disappeared. His defense seems to have remained at the same above average level at least, but those saved runs can't make up for the loss of run production.

---

Right. At this rate, Jones isn't a Hall of Famer. The question is "Before the last two seasons did you think Jones was having a HOF career?" And, considering he was coming off two of his best seasons, and was still just 30 years old, I think that with a 4-5 more years of 120 or so OPS+ and good defense, he'd be a solid HOFer. Now, it looks like he's just done and he's far from a HOFer,.

Quote:

---

Before the last two seasons did you think Jones was having a HOF career?

---

Maybe, but probably not, which is why I picked "No, he was a good player but not hall worthy". He has had good production, but he's always been plagued by durability questions... which are seemingly proving to be accurate concerns. Hall of famers need longevity.

I guess Torii Hunter and Omar Vizquel are HOF'ers too then since they are great defensive players.

I'm not underrating defense IMO. I think great defensive players can get in but they need to go a long way. Ozzie Smith had over 2500 hits. Possible Jones will get there, but it's no guarentee. I know Andruw's had more HR's and RBI's so that probably evens the board. Ozzie was in like 12-15 all star games to Jones 5. Thats not a great stat as there are a ton of variables.

What separates it for me is Ozzie was a huge ambassador for the game. There are very few special players that elevate themselves to this special distinction. I think it's also hard to explain but most would understand it. Kirby Puckett, although I don't think he was hall worthy was borderline IMO and got in because of this distinction. Sure Jones could one day turn into this, but he's not at this point even close.

The way a player is perceived is often a product of the media and not alway fair...heck i'll say often is unfair. But regardless it is a big part of who gets in and who doesn't......and although Andruw isn't viewed as a bad guy he doesn't yet have enough of whatever you want to call it to justify overlooking his offensive HOF shortcomings.

Just my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

I guess Torii Hunter and Omar Vizquel are HOF'ers too then since they are great defensive players.

---

Hunter has not been as good as Jones offensively, and Vizquel has been bad offensively.

But anyway, I haven't been saying that Jones is a Hall of Famer. At this point, he's not at all, and he needs to have a ridiculous turnaround to even get back into the discussion.

Well... technically, he's still a marginal Hall of Famer (HOF Monitor: Batting - 101.5 (143) (Likely HOFer > 100) ). He'd need to quit immediately to receive any consideration though, and even then most of the writers would realize what was up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Hunter has not been as good as Jones offensively, and Vizquel has been bad offensively.

But anyway, I haven't been saying that Jones is a Hall of Famer. At this point, he's not at all, and he needs to have a ridiculous turnaround to even get back into the discussion.

---

Vizquel has been every bit as good as Ozzie Smith offensively. Similar amount of hits and I think a higher BA. Not that i'm saying he's a HOF'er, just disputing a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

Vizquel has been every bit as good as Ozzie Smith offensively. Similar amount of hits and I think a higher BA.

---

Yeah, but, Smith did it in a low-offense era while Vizquel has played in the highest offensive era ever..

Smith hit .262/.337/.328, which comes out to an 87 OPS+ while also stealing 580 bases at a 79% success rate.

Vizquel has higher rate stats - .274/.340/.357, which is an 84 OPS+, not that much lower but still lower. He's stolen 380 bases at a 71% success rate.

Plus, as good as Vizquel's defense has been, Smith's was STILL ridiculously better, which just goes to show how amazing Smith was.

Quote:

---

Plus, as good as Vizquel's defense has been, Smith's was STILL ridiculously better, which just goes to show how amazing Smith was.

---

Well, I agreed with almost all you said except for this. You have no way of justifying it and I don't know how anyone can be 'rediculously' better than Vizquel who's pretty much the standard bearer for defensive shortstops of the modern era. I'd also be curious how old you are and how much of the wizard you actually saw...if you claim that Smith was better by the eyeball test of course.

And the stolen base argument is just as moot then as the batting argument as SB's were much more frequent in Ozzie's heyday.

We are both in agreement on Jones.....I'll actually state that Vizquel is much closer to HOF status than Jones IMO....and he's not a HOF'er either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

Well, I agreed with almost all you said except for this. You have no way of justifying it and I don't know how anyone can be 'rediculously' better than Vizquel who's pretty much the standard bearer for defensive shortstops of the modern era. I'd also be curious how old you are and how much of the wizard you actually saw...if you claim that Smith was better by the eyeball test of course.

---

I'm too young to have ever seen Ozzie...well, technically, I could've seen him at the end of his career but I'd have been too young to remember.

I'm going by the defensive stats that do go back that far. Since they all agree that Ozzie was heads and shoulders above everybody else, and his reputation matches that, I'd say they're fairly accurate. For example, his Range Factor was 5.03 compared to a 4.10 league average. Vizquel is at 4.40 compared to a 4.11 league average.

Using Baseball Prospectus' Fielding Runs Above Average, Smith is at +254 for his career. Omar Vizquel is at +65.

You know, I amk increasingly finding myself hoping they just run out of freaking stats to create. It's nothing short of ridiculous! Seriously, you wanna know why a fair chunk of the population doesn't care about baseball? They don't want to hear a thousand different stats about every guy in every situation!

That settles it...in an earlier post, I threatened to beat up an old lady? Forget it...I'm going to kick Bill James' ***.

:D

Send Bill some numbers, any numbers, and I bet he could tell you which board member is most likely to actually kick his ***.:)

Lol. The official Bill James Who's Gonna Beat Me Down Abstract?

ok, much as I hate to admit it, the last 3 posts have made me loller.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beerchaser

ok, much as I hate to admit it, the last 3 posts have made me loller.

---

Why ? It is a fact that you can make varied stats say "whatever" you want you just need someone to believe you.One of the reasons I dislike some Saberstats is their methodology (or lack of) & also the LACK of a published formulae.

Elsewhere there was a nice debate on VORP (Value over Replacement player) which showed :

1° the actual title was misleading?as it wasnt value but just BATTING value &
2° THE replacement player NEVER existed & his level was so bad that no GM would acyually call him UP!

So what is/was the use of VORP? None Overall,some in a specific context & even that context has to be judged as dubious as WE dont have the accurate formula for VORP
..............................:rolleyes::)

Uh, that's an incredibly inaccurate representation of the debate...considering #1 is a) wrong and b) ridiculously nitpickiy, and #2 was a) actually never even mentioned and b) also wrong...:rolleyes:

For anybody that wants to see for themselves, here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Uh, that's an incredibly inaccurate representation of the debate...:rolleyes:

---

Not really HGM as I said you can make STATS say what you want if you pick & choose & ignore certain stats.FRAA for example is IMO a very good saber stat & says exactly what it is A FIELDING assessment whereas VORP doesnt it says VALUE ----now VALUE means total VALUE .

Unless I am mistaken Baseball is a duopolistic sport (or in the NL a triopolistic sport for Pitchers) which has more than 1 trait to determine value.The only time VORP is accurate is when it "judges" DHs'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX

Not really HGM as I said you can make STATS say what you want if you pick & choose & ignore certain stats.

---

Yeah.

Quote:

---

FRAA for example is IMO a very good saber stat

---

FRAA is one of the "saber stats" that is most frequently bashed by sabermetricians outside BP because it does find itself with different views of players than a) reputation and b) more advanced fielding stats.

Quote:

---

whereas VORP doesnt it says VALUE ----now VALUE means total VALUE .

---

As I said in the other thread, when the argument against a stat is what it's called, that's incredibly weak.

And no, value by itself doesn't mean anything without more context given to it. In this case, it means offensive value. FRAA and VORP measure the same thing - a player's value in terms of runs, FRAA for defense, VORP for offense. Stop nitpicking the name of the stat when anybody that uses it knows full well what it means.

Quote:

---

Unless I am mistaken Baseball is a duopolistic sport (or in the NL a triopolistic sport for Pitchers) which has more than 1 trait to determine value.The only time VORP is accurate is when it "judges" DHs'

---

Once again, nitpicking over the name. Would it really make you feel better if from here on out it was referred to as OVORP? Does that really all of a sudden make it a good stat in your eyes? Because, with all the arguments focusing solely on nit picking the name, I'd think that changing the name should suddenly make it a great stat. Or, you know, you can just accept that it's named just fine and isn't meant to be an all-encompassing value stat such as WARP or Win Shares. It's meant to estimate a players offensive value for hitters and a players run prevention value for pitchers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Yeah.


FRAA is one of the "saber stats" that is most frequently bashed by sabermetricians outside BP because it does find itself with different views of players than a) reputation and b) more advanced fielding stats.


As I said in the other thread, when the argument against a stat is what it's called, that's incredibly weak.

And no, value by itself doesn't mean anything without more context given to it. In this case, it means offensive value. FRAA and VORP measure the same thing - a player's value in terms of runs, FRAA for defense, VORP for offense. Stop nitpicking the name of the stat when anybody that uses it knows full well what it means.


Once again, nitpicking over the name. Would it really make you feel better if from here on out it was referred to as OVORP? Does that really all of a sudden make it a good stat in your eyes? Because, with all the arguments focusing solely on nit picking the name, I'd think that changing the name should suddenly make it a great stat. Or, you know, you can just accept that it's named just fine and isn't meant to be an all-encompassing value stat such as WARP or Win Shares. It's meant to estimate a players offensive value for hitters and a players run prevention value for pitchers.

---

VORP has more than that as a flaw,OK simply give me the formula how VORP final results are achieved - I know how SLG/BA/OBP/OBA are calculated how is VORP achieved ?


In order to assess its "usage" (actual value for GMs/Managers or even BMers) then I (& I assume others) need to know what it uses & what it doesnt & WHAT weights.



For example is HRs weighted more than SBs & if so why & by how much? Also VORP ignores team strategies* - the VORP values are heavily weighted (based on the results) to AL style hitting rather than NL small ball.



* bunting/SACs etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX

VORP has more than that as a flaw,OK simply give me the formula how VORP final results are achieved - I know how SLG/BA/OBP/OBA are calculated how is VORP achieved ?

---

http://www.stathead.com/bbeng/woolner/vorpdescnew.htm

Quote:

---

In order to assess its "usage" (actual value for GMs/Managers or even BMers) then I (& I assume others) need to know what it uses & what it doesnt & WHAT weights.

---

I'm pretty sure front offices can get the full details of BP's stats, provided they pay. Also, if this is your gripe with the stat, which is legitimate, than don't waste time nitpicking the name.

Quote:

---

For example is HRs weighted more than SBs & if so why & by how much?

---

They're weighted by their actual average run values.

Quote:

---

Also VORP ignores team strategies*

---

First off, it's meant as an estimate. Secondly, it doesn't "ignore team strategies" as much as it "assigns a value to them.

Quote:

---

- the VORP values are heavily weighted (based on the results) to AL style hitting rather than NL small ball.

---

It's heavily weighted towards the actual run values of what goes on on the field. Yes, home runs provide better run value than sacrifice bunts. This does not mean that it's weight to favor the AL. It means its weighted to actually estimate run production.

Also, players are compared to players in their own league.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

http://www.stathead.com/bbeng/woolner/vorpdescnew.htm

---

That is not the formula that is an explaination of what VORP takes into account - no weights nor even a % allocation. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I'm pretty sure front offices can get the full details of BP's stats, provided they pay. Also, if this is your gripe with the stat, which is legitimate, than don't waste time nitpicking the name.

---

The name is "not a nit pick" as you quaintly put it but a legitimate FALLACY - A car is a car not a bus,thus when you call something VALUE OVER REPLACEMENT PLAYER then it states EXACTLY that the VALUE.* not really important however*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

They're weighted by their actual average run values.

---

Really? Well that actually contradicts what Woolmer actually says....

Quote:

---

One slight problem with this is that a leadoff hitter will get a higher percentage of team PA's than the #9 hitter will, even if each plays every inning of every game. This method does not attempt to adjust for differences in PA's resulting for lineup position.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

First off, it's meant as an estimate. Secondly, it doesn't "ignore team strategies" as much as it "assigns a value to them.

---

again wrong Woolmer states here

Quote:

---

Let's assume for a moment that the player in question plays every single game during the season, and accumulates exactly 1/9th of the team's late appearances (this is roughly equivalent to saying that the player is hitting fifth, although we aren't explicitly modelling batting order effects here). We'll also assume that the rest of the team is composed entirely of league average hitters.


MLV, as described above, compares a player to a league average hitter. However, the distribution of hitting talent is not equal throughout all positions. Due to the defensive difficulty of the shortstop, there are fewer good hitters capable of the fielding demands of the position. As we move closer to a complete measure of a player's value, we need to understand and correct for the systematic differences in position.

---

thus VORP only assigns to League Average with no consideration at ALL to strategies employed by team #1 or team #30 thus the St Louis "small ball" of the 80's would be totally undervalued.In essence ALL strategies are ignored & it implicitly over rates batters with high IBBs (such as Bonds in his hey day)

Also as it takes the league average RC as the basis for comparison THEN implicitly any deviation away from League average standard RC will be BE mismanaged & corrupted- he states that he compares a #5 batter & a #9 batter as EQUAL thus undermining the role to position & demands that Managers' & ipso facto Players' have for a Leadoff hitter or a Clean up hitter.

Which is illogical as each position in the batting order HAS specific roles/demands & returns

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

It's heavily weighted towards the actual run values of what goes on on the field. Yes, home runs provide better run value than sacrifice bunts. This does not mean that it's weight to favor the AL. It means its weighted to actually estimate run production.

Also, players are compared to players in their own league.

---

Lastly VORP (or should I say RP) is based on 1 year 1998.But is 1998 the typical year,is it standard,what were the Averages & why that sole year to determine RP ? AGAIN Woolmer states "hit about .235/.300/.356" but again no strategy nor management effects (eg Pinch Hitters/Runners or substitutions).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX

That is not the formula that is an explaination of what VORP takes into account - no weights nor even a % allocation. :rolleyes:

---

Read the article. VORP is simply comparing a player's MLV (Marginal Lineup Value) to replacement level. The article links to a mathmatical explanation of MLV.

Quote:

---

The name is "not a nit pick" as you quaintly put it but a legitimate FALLACY - A car is a car not a bus,thus when you call something VALUE OVER REPLACEMENT PLAYER then it states EXACTLY that the VALUE. not really important however

---

It is nitpicking, because it's not a fallacy. It does tell you a player's value over a replacement level player. His offensive value. You know this, yet you nitpick the name. Fine, from now on, we'll refer to it as OVORP. Does that make the stat good now?

Quote:

---

Really? Well that actually contradicts what Woolmer actually says....

---

Um, no, it doesn't. MLV doesn't adjust for differences in plate appearances due to lineup positions. That has nothing at all to do with the weightings of the different offensive components (singles, doubles, homers, etc.)...

Quote:

---

again wrong Woolmer states herethus VORP only assigns to League Average with no consideration at ALL to strategies employed by team #1 or team #30 thus the St Louis "small ball" of the 80's would be totally undervalued.In essence ALL strategies are ignored &

---

How am I wrong if that's exactly what I said? By the very definition of looking at the stats, which are generated by the strategies, it's not ignoring the strategies. It's assigning value to the outcomes...

Quote:

---

it implicitly over rates batters with high IBBs (such as Bonds in his hey day)

---

Uh? How? An IBB is the exact same thing as a regular walk. IBBs have identical value to a non-intentional walk.

Quote:

---

Also as it takes the league average RC as the basis for comparison THEN implicitly any deviation away from League average standard RC will be BE mismanaged & corrupted- he states that he compares a #5 batter & a #9 batter as EQUAL thus undermining the role to position & demands that Managers' & ipso facto Players' have for a Leadoff hitter or a Clean up hitter.Which is illogical as each position in the batting order HAS specific roles/demands & returns

---

Yes, each position in the batting order has different roles. However, what each player does still has an estimated value, and that's what VORP is. A estimate of a player's offensive value. A walk from a #5 hitter is as valuable as a walk from a #9 hitter. Yes, obviously, a walk in front of a good hitter is technically mroe valuable than a walk in front of a pitcher, but that's not what VORP is meant to do. It's meant to estimate a player's own individual value, regardless of surrounding players, team specific strategies, etc. It's meant to allow you to compare any player on any team to any other. It is an estimate.

Quote:

---

Lastly VORP* (or should I say RP) is based on 1 year 1998.But is 1998 the typical year,is it standard,what were the Averages & why that sole year to determine RP ?

---

Uh, no. That's just when the article was written. Replacement level is calculated for each separate year based on that year's stats...2007 VORP isn't calculated using the 1998 replacement level. It's calculated using the 2007 replacement level.

Quote:

---

AGAIN Woolmer states "hit about .235/.300/.356"* but again no strategy nor management effects (eg Pinch Hitters/Runners or substitutions).

---

It's not meant to.

Also, it's Woolner.