Brooks Robinson is in the Hall of Fame; why isn't Graig Nettles?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Brooks Robinson is to position players what Nolan Ryan is to pitchers; the most overrated deserving HOFer of all. Nolan Ryan and Brooks Robinson are both in the HOF, and both deserve to be, but both enjoy reputations that overblow their real value as players moreso than any other players I can think of.

So here's my question: If Brooks Robinson is in the HOF, why isn't Graig Nettles?

Let's look at some stats


Brooks Robinson vs. Graig Nettles

2896 games vs. 2700 games
.267 BA vs .248 BA.
.322 OBP vs. .329 OBP
.723 OPS vs. .750 OPS
3.10 range factor (league 2.74) vs 2.98 range factor (league 2.62)

Each played in comparable World Series, and each was a fielding star in one particular series.

So why is Nettles out, when you compare him to Robinson?

Brooks has several arguments that rank him ahead of Nettles:

1. He won an MVP award (1964).
2. He played in far more All-Star games.
3. He won far more Gold Gloves.

Nettles can counter with the following:

1. He led the league in HRs (1976).
2. He played in more World Series.
3. The competition at 3B in the AL was stiffer over the course of Nettles' career than Robinson's.

Is Nettles SO FAR BEHIND BROOKS AS TO NOT BE A HALL OF FAMER?

I normally don't advocate the case for a player being enshrined on the basis of "Soandso is in, and Whosamading was almost as good, so why isn't Whosamading in." In this case, the argument is germane because:

1. Robinson and Nettles' careers are similar and comparable.
2. Robinson is, or is considered to be, an unquestioned HOFer, and one of the top 10 (many would say top 5) ever to play 3B. (At one time, Robinson was considered by some to be the best 3B of all time.)

I think Nettles has been hurt by two things:

1. His low batting average (which is balanced by OBP and slugging pct.).
2. His stellar 1978 World Series being overshadowed by the hitting heroics of Brian Doyle. (Brooks had the spotlight all to himself in 1970, but Nettles' performance was, I believe, equal, or nearly enough equal to split the difference.)

Who was the better player? Probably B. Robby. I do give Brooks credit for playing during the offensive drought years of 1963-68, and conditions were more pitcher friendly in Robinson's career, overall, than in Nettles (although the part of Nettles career that was the most pitcher friendly was the earlier part of his career, through his prime).

Graig Nettles isn't the best third baseman not in the HOF; that honor goes to Ron Santo, with Ken Boyer and Stan Hack ahead of Graig. However, I think Graig belongs. It's time to look at his whole career (and his whole offensive contribution), and not just his batting average.

[TimmyB]

I was a little too young to catch (sorry) Brooks in his prime (I remember him better for his Lite Beer commercial with Frank), so, in my youth, Nettles was the Gold Standard. He showed great glove. He was killer in the '78 series.

No question he had pop.

Highlighting his defense might lead some to start the Ozzie/Maz arguement, but he certainly brought more to the field than his glove. That said, as a kid, he was the best 3rd baseman I saw (grew up in an AL East town).

Yes, there are others ahead of him and that will probably hold him back for quite a while.

I wouldn't hold a vote "for" him against anyone.

[JamesI]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear
.
I think Nettles has been hurt by two things:

1. His low batting average (which is balanced by OBP and slugging pct.).

You claim his low average is balanced by on base and slugging, but I don't believe the voters look at it that way. Average is very important to the voters, and .248 is not good. Are there any hall of fame positional players in the hall with a worse average?

[pwdennis]

I saw both during their primes - Brooks was a bit better defensively (than anyone I ever saw) and the 75-76-77 seasons really put the jackhammer to all of Brooksie's ratios - a far bigger pounding than Nettles took from his last three seasons. Actually the 2nd best defensive player at 3B that I ever saw was Clete Boyer.

That said, I think Craig Nettles is a creditable HOF candidate, even notwithstanding the low BA

p.s. - I do disagree with the notion that Brooks Robinson is in any way overrated. No one ever lumps him in with Frank Robinson or Henry Aaron as an offensive force. He was what he was - an outstanding defensive player with some real offensive pop during his prime

Black Ink: Batting - 10 (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 133 (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 34.0 (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 128.0 (Likely HOFer > 100)

[SmedIndy]

The low BA is the key. You'd have some eediots screaming to Baseball Digest, or whoever, that Nettles was tainting the HOF because of his low BA. Hey, Hal Morris hit .304 for a career. You want HIM in there?

James has Nettles #13, between Ken Boyer and Al Rosen. That seems about right.

Nettles is one case of a guy hanging on too long though. He probably should have hung 'em up after the 1984 series or maybe 1985. Instead, he really tainted the memories of the mid-70's by his last few years.

[VNV Nation]

Bill James has Nettles at 321 Win Shares, Robinson at 356 Win Shares. I think 300 or so is a borderline candidate. (Buddy Bell has 301 win shares).

35 Win Shares if fairly significant over a similar length of time. that's like 12 wins.

I think Darrell Evans is a better HOF candidate than Nettles, and I don't think Darrell is a HOF guy.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by VNV Nation
Bill James has Nettles at 321 Win Shares, Robinson at 356 Win Shares. I think 300 or so is a borderline candidate. (Buddy Bell has 301 win shares).

35 Win Shares if fairly significant over a similar length of time. that's like 12 wins.

I think Darrell Evans is a better HOF candidate than Nettles, and I don't think Darrell is a HOF guy.

I think Bill James overrates Darrell Evans, in that Evans played 1B for a significant chunk of his career, and wasn't the defensive 3B that Nettles was. Nettles was at third for over 95% of his games played, and was of Gold Glove quality. Nettles is of HOF quality, and was, I believe, a better player than Darrell Evans, in that his defensive contributions were more substantial.

[poorme]

The guy never even hit .280, not once in twenty years. He was a good player, but jeez, c'mon. .248 lifetime? I bet there's not a guy in the hall who played since 1930 with a career average anywhere near that bad.

NO NO NO. A thousand times NO!!!

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by poorme
The guy never even hit .280, not once in twenty years. He was a good player, but jeez, c'mon. .248 lifetime? I bet there's not a guy in the hall who played since 1930 with a career average anywhere near that bad.

NO NO NO. A thousand times NO!!!

But his .248 was much more productive than some players .300.

[poorme]

Originally posted by SmedIndy


But his .248 was much more productive than some players .300.

I agree with that statement. But we're not talking about "some players". We're comparing him to the most elite group of all time. Is he one of the most elite players of all time? No way. You can twist the argument by comparing him to another player who is in the hall, and then trying to explain why he's "almost as good". You could make a case for a million guys like that. In that case, Dawson, Baines, Parker, Concepcion, and a dozen other guys should get in too. I thought this group generally had high HOF standards. I guess not........

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by poorme


I agree with that statement. But we're not talking about "some players". We're comparing him to the most elite group of all time. Is he one of the most elite players of all time? No way. You can twist the argument by comparing him to another player who is in the hall, and then trying to explain why he's "almost as good". You could make a case for a million guys like that. In that case, Dawson, Baines, Parker, Concepcion, and a dozen other guys should get in too. I thought this group generally had high HOF standards. I guess not........

For myself, I never said Nettles was HOF standard.

I was just making the point that you can't hold his .248 average against him as his sole negative.

Remember, I want to take a crowbar into the HOF.

[KCBOOMER]

Saw both players for their entire careers Nettles was a very good 3B, but he wasn't remotely the defensive player B-Robby was. Like comparing Grich to Mazeroski (speaking of HoF mistakes).

To me both players fall in the marginal category. Some get in (B-Robby) and some don't (Nettles).

SmedIndy is right we need to take a crowbar to some (a lot) of plaques in the HoF. First group out is "if you didn't get in as a player yer out". Second group is Frankie Frisch's cronies. Then let' throw out another fifty on principal (Schalk, Kell, Drysdale, Bresnahan, etc.).

With all due respect, Brooks was a vastly superior player to Nettles. That is borne out by the fans and the sportswriters, who voted him all those gold gloves and to all those all star games. It's not exactly fair to equate an MVP by Brooks with a home run championship - The best Nettles ever did in an mvp ballot was 5th, despite playing on good teams. He had 2 seasons in the top 10 of the mvp balloting. Brooks had an MVP, plus a second place, two thirds and a fourth. That's 5 seasons that were, at least at the time, perceived as being better than any season Nettles had.

Was Brooks overrated? Maybe. Is Brooks deserving of the HOF? Absolutely. Is Nettles deserving of the HOF? Not at all.

[Skip]

Originally posted by poorme
I thought this group generally had high HOF standards. I guess not........

As a favor to all, please try to avoid blanket statements like this when responding to a specific point, topic, or individual. It keeps the conversation moving and helps keep the tone on an even keel. Thanks.

[poorme]

Originally posted by Skip
As a favor to all, please try to avoid blanket statements like this when responding to a specific point, topic, or individual. It keeps the conversation moving and helps keep the tone on an even keel. Thanks.

Yes sir, Skip! No more generalizations.