Matt Williams' place in Baseball History

[Fuzzy Bear]

www.baseballreference.com/w/willima04.shtml

Matt Williams is coming into the home stretch of his career. Has he done enough to be worthy of the HOF?

Williams has 374 HRs to date with a .269 BA. His OBP is only .316, but he has driven in 1202 runs.

Williams is a four (4) time Gold Glove winner and a five (5) time All-Star. He led the NL with 43 HRs in 1994, and was on pace to break Maris' record at the time of the strike.

Williams was, arguably, the best 3B in the NL from 1990-96. He was not the best in the league in the way that George Brett was the best in the league, but he was the best, offensively and defensively, overall, during that period. I believe he was a better player than Terry Pendleton the year Terry Pendleton won the MVP, and many of you probably agree.

Matt is a borderline HOFer right now, IMO, suffering more from the prejudice against slugging 3B than anything else.

I believe Williams to be a more worthy candidate than Rice or Evans (sorry, Red Sox Nation) due to his defensive contributions at 3B.

Injuries have hurt Williams' career. He has not been the most durable; this is the most serious knock against him.

Nonetheless, I believe that Williams is near the point where he would be a "Highest Common Denominator" HOF candidate, in that there would be no comparable player who has done what he has done that is NOT in the HOF.

Williams could well attain 400+ lifetime HRs this year. He could go as high as 450 for a career, although that's a little tough, and 500 is probably out of reach at this point. He HR rate of 33 per 162 games is excellent for a 3B.

Is Matt Williams a HOFer right now?

If not, what does he need to do to get there? Or is there nothing he can possibly do to deserve to be there, at this point?

And WILL he get in, deserving or not?

[pwdennis]

Williams is not quite HOF material at this point. He sorts of falls in the same category as Tony Oliva - a Hall of Famer if he'd stayed healthy , only Oliva was a much more dangerous hitter. Adjusting for eras makes any comparison between the two ridiculous. Williams , of course, had greater defensive value.

Only because he was a 3B would this discussion be worth having . If Matt Williams were an OF or 1B he wouldn't be close to being HOF material . Even as it is, he needs to do more to really be worthy of Cooperstown. A look at his current comps reveals a lot of slow footed fairly devent OFs and 1Bs, none of whom have yet gotten a sniff of Cooperstown's rarified air:

Rocky Colavito (898)
George Foster (898)
Ron Cey (880)
Frank Howard (870)
Robin Ventura (862)
Gil Hodges (852)
Jack Clark (851)
Joe Adcock (848)
Greg Luzinski (847)
Lee May (846)

Fairly good players all, but that's about it. I'm not sure where I would rate Williams among the all-timers at 3B but it would be below the top tier

[SmedIndy]

He will be as remembered in 50 years as Harlond Clift and Ken Keltner are now, and in 100 years as Harry Steinfeldt and Jerry Denny are now.

Nothing to get excited about. No need for 10-page diatribes. He's not good enough, never will be.

[LeGrandOrange]

He's just going to be this era's Ron Cey. Nothing else. He'll be very good for his career and an automatic to NetShrine, but one and out in the HOF voting.

[TGwynn19]

no way, no how is Matt Williams a HOF'er.

[cubfan33]

BP's PECOTA has a different system for predicting players based on historical similarities. Since most are familiar with the James scores, I'm quoting some of the PECOTA info here.

NOTE: PECOTA info is (C) BP 2003 and used with permission.

For Williams, his most similar players at this age are Ken Boyer, George Hendrick, and Chris Speier. More notably, Williams has a drop rate (meaning the likelihood he'll be out of baseball) of 27.4% for next year and over 60% in 2004.

For me, it looks like Williams will fall short of HOF numbers and certainly is less deserving than Ron Santo. Williams may miss the hype of the Maris chase in 94 more than any other candidate I can recall.

Plug: PECOTA is available only at BP Premium. See Will for details :)

[Max Power]

Not much difference between Matt and Ken Caminiti for me.

[Rajah]

Matts another "woulda coulda shoulda" to me. He could have been among the all time greats, but he spent too much time hurt. It also seems like he crashed pretty fast offensively. I can't remember him doing much of anything of note since leaving Cleveland. Besides being way overpaid that is. If he'd have stayed just a little healthier, and gotten over that 400 homer mark by now, I'd be much more open to the idea.

[JamesI]

I have to agree with everyone. Had Williams stayed healthy, he could be a hall of famer. But his injury problems and the 1994 strike cost him a lot.

[rcartman28]

I don't think he quite makes it, either. He was very good for awhile, but too many injuries and not quite big enough numbers.

[Golden Bear]

I've been touting Matt Williams as a HOF candidate for years now, for all the reasons Fuzzy states. Great fielder, great slugger, on winning teams, etc.

But then he loses one season to being hurt, and then another, and then a half season here and two months there...and now it looks like he's just about done, and the case isn't nearly made.

When a guy never gets that "superstar" label, for whatever reasons, (and I think Williams may have merited the label at his mid-90's peak), you've got to pile up the stats. Williams just hasn't stayed healthy enough to do that. Shoot, he doesn't even have 2000 hits or 1000 runs yet -- and he's not a lock to get there at this point. He's 37, and his team would trade him if they could find a taker.

If he has a major career revival -- and not one last hurrah, but three-odd All-Star or near All-Star quality seasons, then he's got a shot. Failing that, I think he's a near miss. He'll never overcome the slugging-low BA 3b problem.

[Golden Bear]

You know, I'm not even sure he doesn't deserve it. But look at the line of potentially deserving players at 3b. No research here; this is the top of my head:

Wade Boggs
Ron Santo
Ken Boyer
Stan Hack
Lave Cross
Darrell Evans
Graig Nettles
Gary Gaetti
Buddy Bell
Robin Ventura
Chipper Jones

He's probably better than Gaetti or Bell. He's in a group with Nettles and Evans -- the ordering there is unclear; similar-type players. The book is not closed on Ventura and Jones.

Boggs is in as soon as he is eligible. Santo was better. Boyer was better. Hack and Cross, while the comparison gets harder comparing across all that time, probably were better too.

Even if Williams meets your personal HOF standards (and most who are weighing in here indicate he does not), you gotta figure he'll have a long wait to get to the window to have his ticket punched, because he's got five or more guys who need to get their tickets punched first. And more could be coming (Chavez, Glaus, Rolen...all conceivably on their way)

[sweaver]

I don't think Matt Williams belongs in the Hall. But an interesting point has been raised, about how a full 1994 season might have affected his legacy. Had Williams been the first to match or exceed Roger Maris, would he make the Hall?

I think so. And in that light, I think the 1994 work stoppage cost Matt Williams the Hall of Fame.

[Golden Bear]

Wow; I think you're right. For that matter, even if he'd come close -- if he'd hung a 57 HR season up, say, I think he'd still make it. He'd be less than 10 HR shy of 400 in that case, which is an attention-getting round number.

Collateral damage of the labor wars. Damn shame. Unless you're Ted Williams (for example), you need a little luck to make the HOF. Matt didn't have it.

[nyy26wc]

Originally posted by sweaver
I don't think Matt Williams belongs in the Hall. But an interesting point has been raised, about how a full 1994 season might have affected his legacy. Had Williams been the first to match or exceed Roger Maris, would he make the Hall?


Considering that being the first to exceed Babe Ruth never allowed Roger Maris to come close, I don't see how being the first to exceed Roger Maris could really have mattered in Matt Williams's case.

[Golden Bear]

Originally posted by nyy26wc
Considering that being the first to exceed Babe Ruth never allowed Roger Maris to come close, I don't see how being the first to exceed Roger Maris could really have mattered in Matt Williams's case.

Maris was a corner OF with 275 career HR, 851 career RBI, and a .260 BA. Those career totals don't even measure up to the mistake choices for the HOF. Absent 1961, his HOF case is laughable -- it's like pushing Jeff Burroughs. With 1961, he got substantial support.

Matt Williams has a decent, though ultimately insufficient, case, without the "big year". He's got 100 more HR, 350 more RBI, multiple GG at a skill defensive position -- Williams is arguably the best fielding 3b of his generation (some would argue Ventura or Caminiti; I'd vote Matt).

To be fair, Maris was a fine RF glove, and there are some period adjustments that work in Roger's favor. (Not as much as the short porch, though.)

Maris was so far from a credible candidate that the extra edge from being the HR king was not nearly enough. Williams is close, and one extra nudge from a substantial achievement like setting the single season HR mark would probably do it for him.

[JamesI]

Originally posted by nyy26wc
Considering that being the first to exceed Babe Ruth never allowed Roger Maris to come close, I don't see how being the first to exceed Roger Maris could really have mattered in Matt Williams's case.

The rest of Williams career is better than Maris'.

[Golden Bear]

Originally posted by JamesI
The rest of Williams career is better than Maris'.

James, you've gotten to the heart of it, much faster than I did.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by nyy26wc
Considering that being the first to exceed Babe Ruth never allowed Roger Maris to come close, I don't see how being the first to exceed Roger Maris could really have mattered in Matt Williams's case.

It would have mattered for several reasons:

(1) If Williams had broken Maris' record he would have broken a record of significant importance.

(2) The 60 HR mark had only been eclipsed by Ruth and Maris previous to 1994, and held a mystique.

(3) Williams was Gold Glove 3B, and, as such, his defense added significantly to his career value over, say, a corner OF or 1B with similar stats.

(4) Williams has hit more HRs than Maris, albeit Maris deserves some credit for the era he played in. However, Williams isn't done yet.

The comparisions to Harlond Clift, Lave Cross, and Ron Cey are also somewhat inaccurately stated because:

(A) Williams had power; Cross didn't, plus Cross' OBP wasn't much higher. (As Cross played 3B at a time where 3B was to the right of 2B on the defensive spectrum, according to Bill James, Cross should be compared to modern 2B rathat than 3B.)

(B) Williams has over 200 more lifetime HRs than Clift, and has probably been a better defensive player. Even given Clift's outstanding career OBP of .390, 200 jacks is a LOT of career value to add to one's record.

(C) Williams, like Cey, played in tough hitters' parks for most of his career. Cey and Williams are comparable, offensively, but Cey was average, at best, at 3B, while Williams' defense at 3B has been of Gold Glove quality.

There is something a bit disingenuous here coming from the exclusivist ranks of the HOF debate. It is a disingenuous argument that is the counterpoint to the "throw the doors open crowd" which is equally disingenuous. (I'm not trying to offend, but I can't think of a better word here.)

The "throw the door open crowd" uses the Lowest Common Denominator Argument. "If Phil Rizzuto is in the HOF, then Larry Bowa should be in as well, because Bowa was a better player than Rizzuto.", ad nauseum. This is disingenuous because it ignores that Johnny Logan and Dave Concepcion and Alan Trammell and Art Fletcher and Cecil Travis and Jim Fregosi were all, IMO, better than Rizzuto, and they are NOT in the HOF. (Only Trammell has a realistic chance of ever being there; Concepcion is the only other one with a "shot" but his chances, minimal as they are, have a lot to do with Joe Morgan being alive, well, and on the air.) They IGNORE the larger number of equally or better qualified candidates who have NOT made the HOF.

The "exclusivists", on the other hand, are disingenuous in other ways. They argue against a candidate by comparing him to players who are not, and will not, be HOFers, while ignoring (at least in this case) two key pieces of information.

(1) There are significant differences between Williams and Maris, Williams and Cey, Williams and Cross, and Williams and Clift, and . . .

(2) In each case, the difference is solidly in Williams' favor. Williams has more defensive value than Maris, plus more lifetime HRs. Williams had power, Cross didn't. Williams had 200 more lifetime HRs than Clift, and was better, defensively. Williams had far more value on defense than Cey, and everyone in the house knows this; it's a difference that really isn't up for debate. (If it is up for debate, BTW, I'll start threads on how Lonnie Smith was robbed of Gold Gloves! :D )

Matt's on the line right now; there are better guys than him outside the HOF, and there are worse guys than him in the HOF. If he has 2-3 more years averaging 20-25 HRs with good defense, he rates ahead of Nettles and Darrell Evans and CLEARLY moves into the Santo-Boyer club. If he tops 400 HRs, he's probably in that club, especially if he has a good 2003 season. I'm not for throwing the doors open to the HOF, but I think Williams deserves to be evaluated in comparision to ALL 3B eligible for induction, and all who have been inducted.

His case is better than he gets credit for, IMO.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by Golden Bear

Williams is close, and one extra nudge from a substantial achievement like setting the single season HR mark would probably do it for him.

This is, in a nutshell, my assessment of where Williams stands regarding the HOF right now, if an impartial assessment is made.

"Impartial" doesn't mean what one personally thinks of Matt Williams, so much as what one personally thinks of what the HOF should be. This is where Matt is at, by the standards of the REAL HOF, based on their cumulative inductions, minus the Frisch flukes.

[nyy26wc]

In 1994, Williams would have had to almost double his RCAA figure just to rank at the bottom of the league's top 10.

In 1961, Maris could have had his RCAA cut in half and he'd still rank in the top 10.

If we were to prorate Williams's 1994 season out to 162 games, that's 26 RCAA. Over a 5 year span (1960-64), Maris exceeded that 4 times.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by nyy26wc
In 1994, Williams would have had to almost double his RCAA figure just to rank at the bottom of the league's top 10.

In 1961, Maris could have had his RCAA cut in half and he'd still rank in the top 10.

If we were to prorate Williams's 1994 season out to 162 games, that's 26 RCAA. Over a 5 year span (1960-64), Maris exceeded that 4 times.

But Williams was a THIRD BASEMAN!!! Not a corner outfielder.

Where did Williams rank totally? How many position players ahead of him were OF or 1B?

RCAA doesn't take into account the defensive value of a Gold Glove 3B. That sabermetrics doesn't measure defense as well as offense doesn't make defensive value less real.

[nyy26wc]

Originally posted by JamesI
The rest of Williams career is better than Maris'.

Throwing out 1961 and 1994--

Maris: 174 RCAA, .799 OPS vs. 720 league average
Williams: 44 RCAA, .798 OPS vs. .750 league average

[Golden Bear]

RCAA is a statistic, not an argument.

Further, it's a statistic that makes no sense a lot of the time.

In 1994 Williams led all of baseball in home runs. (With a decent BA of .267; this wasn't a Kingman thing). At the same time, he was the best fielding 3b in baseball.

A statistic that says a player like that isn't even close to being one of the top 10 players in his league is, I'm sorry, a statistic that is just not measuring what it purports to measure.

We can believe RCAA or our own lying eyes, I guess. I'm going to go with my eyes.

[JamesI]

Originally posted by Golden Bear
RCAA is a statistic, not an argument.

We can believe RCAA or our own lying eyes, I guess. I'm going to go with my eyes.

hear hear!

[Golden Bear]

Since the Lave Cross comparison was mine, I'll address Fuzzy's comments. I think Fuzzy may have changed my mind on this a bit; objectively, Williams probably is a bit better.

But Cross put up some significant counting stats that stick out when you're looking at unenshrined 3b: 2645 hits, 1371 RBI, .292 BA. He also played 324 games at C early on in his career, which is enough to matter a little. The fact that there was more emphasis on 3b defense in Cross's time is a point in his favor; Cross was clearly a very valuable defensive player at 3b.

Cross didn't have HR power because no one did back then, but he did hit 135 triples, 100 more than Williams. He also hit almost 100 more doubles, and had 800 more hits overall. He also stole bases -- 301 in his career (though many of these were before the rules about what constituted a stolen base were in their present form). Williams has only stolen 53; speed is really not a part of his game. These are big, big differences. So is 300+ HR in the other direction, of course. Cross didn't walk much because no one did (when did the 4-ball walk kick in anyway?); Williams has below average plate discipline for his era.

Fundamentally, it's practically impossible to compare Cross & Williams with a good amount of confidence anyway: Cross began his career in 1887, Williams in 1987. A century, exactly. Cross was born 99 years and 6 months before Williams. Different worlds.

Comparison is nearly futile here -- we've got to compare them on their own merits, in their own context. Williams seems to fall just short, though he's still playing so that can change. I think Cross probably merits induction, but it's far from an outrage that he's not in.

[sweaver]

Originally posted by nyy26wc
Considering that being the first to exceed Babe Ruth never allowed Roger Maris to come close, I don't see how being the first to exceed Roger Maris could really have mattered in Matt Williams's case. My point is that Williams is something of a borderline case. Such a "Fame" point would likely push him over the top for the writers. I still wouldn't vote for him for the Hall, but I think it would make his chances better than 50-50.

[sweaver]

Originally posted by Golden Bear
A statistic that says a player like that isn't even close to being one of the top 10 players in his league is, I'm sorry, a statistic that is just not measuring what it purports to measure.
Not necessarily. The RCAA measurement presents Matt Williams as he is: a power hitter with poor on-base skills, and thus one-dimensional as an offensive player. Such a player needs help to put runs on the board in significant numbers.

Maris, while not a high average hitter either, drew a fair number of walks. He also played in a generally poorer hitting era, and was valuable defensively as well. Was Maris better than Williams? Part of that depends on whether you value defense more in RF or at 3B. Williams has played more years, but missed more games during them.

My argument is, had Matt Williams hit, say, 62 homers in 1994, that would have been a deciding factor that some 5-10 years hence would have led the BBWAA into electing him to the Hall. I think he was quite a good player, a star for some years, but not really worthy of Hall induction, 62 dingers or no.

[Golden Bear]

I think that's what we all meant, that it would impact the BBWAA. 20 HR one way or another is not in and of itself enough to sway the argument for MW.

[CincinnatiChili]

I often wondered what might have happened if the Giants would have left him at shortstop where they drafted him out of UNLV. Perhaps the wear and tear of the position would have affected his numbers. But to think that this move was done in order to keep Jose Uribe playing for an additional four years. And then to think he was followed by Royce Clayton. An 800+ OPS with 400 home runs would make the hall of fame, easily.

[SmedIndy]

Even giving credit for 1994, if he did set the record - in no way does he deserve the HOF. No how.

[KCBOOMER]

Williams shouldn't even get a whiff of the HoF. He simply doesn't measure. His failure to get on base almost totally dilutes the effects of his slugging. For his career he is a slightly above average 3b.

There are too many third baseman ahead of him (Evans, Ken Boyer, Madlock, Harlond Clift, Caminiti, Bell, Nettles, etc.) to seriously consider him.

[JamesI]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
Even giving credit for 1994, if he did set the record - in no way does he deserve the HOF. No how.

While I agree he would not be worthy, I think had the strike not happened and Williams hit #62, he would get elected.

[poorme]

he's not done....yet.

he'll be 37 this year. there is a chance he could hit another 75 homers to put him at 450. it's unlikely given how brittle he's been, but it's possible.

[General_Zod]

You took the words out of my mouth, Lee.

Maris was a good, but not great, player. He broke a sacred record, but still is not HOF-worthy.

Williams was a good, but not great, player. He was on pace to break a sacred record (remember, he was still 18 homers shy of the record--plenty of time to go into a slump or (more likely) get injured and miss time), but still is not HOF-worthy.

Even if he were to hit 400 HR, that's not nearly the lock that it used to be. Plenty of guys figure to notch their 400th this year and in the near future. Sure, Williams did his heavy lifting before the pitching outburst, but a similar argument didn't help Sutter.

z

[sweaver]

With Williams designated for assignment by the Diamondbacks, often the port of last resort for the veteran, he has suddenly come in demand. Supposedly both the Rockies and the Cubs are interested in him if Arizona releases him (and they can pay him the minimum).

Now, at this point, Williams has some uses, mostly as a platoon player. But do the Rockies or Cubs really need him?

[Craig S.]

Originally posted by sweaver
Now, at this point, Williams has some uses, mostly as a platoon player. But do the Rockies or Cubs really need him?

I don't think so, but teams often have trouble letting guys who have succeeded in the past go by the board. But if you can pay him the minimum, why not at least give him a shot?

[SmedIndy]

Hey, if it gets Lenny Harris off the roster, FINE BY ME!

[Golden Bear]

I immediately thought of Seattle for Williams; Neyer just wrote that article praising Seattle but identifying Cirillo as the #1 weakness on the squad.

Williams is at least a potential upgrade, if the change of scenery does him good. Worst case at least he pushes Cirillo a bit.

[JamesI]

If the Rockies are interested, does Williams go there to try to regain his power and pad his homer numbers?

[Golden Bear]

Depends on whether that is important to him.

Remember, he vetoed a deal to go to Colorado in the offseason, because he said he wanted to stay close to his family.

I think he might retire, but if he does look to keep playing, my guess is he'll go somewhere he'll have a chance to win this year. Colorado's not that place.

[qtlaw]

Matt should go to the HOF for great teammates and players who respected everyone around them. When he played for the Giants, he struggled as a highly touted rookie SS, then as a regular but never once blamed anything or anyone other than himself. He played his heart out every inning. I loved him and when they traded him for Kent/Vizcaino/Tavares I was hurt but understood because it was Bonds' team. I was glad he got to play in the 1997 WS and then won with the D'Backs.

However, he is not HOF material. Right now the only hits he's getting are the bloop variety and his glove has let him down tremendously. I wish him well but cannot wish him into the HOF.

[sweaver]

In the end, Williams decided to retire rather than hook up with another team.

I call Williams the 20th greatest 3rd baseman in baseball history. He is about even with Harlond Clift. That sounds about right to me.

[pwdennis]

Let's wish him a healthy and happy retirement - he was a good soldier - maybe below the borderline for Cooperstown but a lock for the Legion of Very Good Players

That's not bad !!