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

[sweaver]

Keep in mind, sweeping generalizations are ALWAYS wrong.

I wouldn't say Robinson was a FAR better player than Nettles. It's pretty close, with a slight edge to Brooksie. To me, Nettles is a borderline Hall candidate, but he will never get in simply because of his batting average. Brooks made it because of the MVP, the 1970 World Series, and his reputation as a clutch hitter.

[moose]

Originally posted by poorme
Yes sir, Skip! No more generalizations.

a golden opportunity to say, "aye aye, skipper" and you let it slip away.... bring on the buckner references

[Skip]

Originally posted by moose

a golden opportunity to say, "aye aye, skipper" and you let it slip away.... bring on the buckner references

Now look here little buddy ....

Back to topic now please. Or is this one played out?

[VNV Nation]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear


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.

I absolutely agree with you on Darrell Evans. Evans is one of those sabermetric flukes. If you want to say that he was better than everyone thought, that he was a good player for a long time, fine.

One of the things that makes Evans overrated is that he gets clumped in with third basemen, as you pointed out. He wasn't the defensive player Nettles was, or Mike Schmidt, or Bell, or Rodriguez, or Robinson. He usually wasn't one of the five best third basemen in his league. He had some good seasons late, when he was a first baseman, but of course, as a first baseman his defensive value was less and he wasn't much compared to even 1980s first basemen like Alvin Davis.

I could be convinced that Nettles was better than Evans, and especially that he was more consistent at his best.

Anywho, I think Robinson was better than both.

I think its really close, but I would cast a vote for him to be in the Hall of Fame.

everybody argues about his low batting average, but that was simply the result of hitting a lot of fly balls. He had a pure fly ball swing. He was a consistant preformer for over a decade, with a lot of pop and excellent defense. He never struck out much, never striking out more than 94 times a season and averaging far lower. Its hard to imagine a power hitter now a days not striking out 100 times a year. He also had 1000 more hits than strikeouts, which is also rare. His defense was underrated since he was in the shadows of others for years. When you look at whos in the HoF (guys like Nellie Fox) and those who aren't (Nettles, Oliva, Billy Pierce and Santo), then i think that its time to start thinking about these other guys like Nettles.

[sweaver]

Originally posted by Doobster779
When you look at whos in the HoF (guys like Nellie Fox) and those who aren't (Nettles, Oliva, Billy Pierce and Santo), then i think that its time to start thinking about these other guys like Nettles.

IMO, Fox and Santo are very deserving, Nettles is borderline, Oliva and Pierce definitely out.

But oh, if Tony's knees had held out. What a hitter.

[pathogan]

of 5 games [including an error on his fisrt chance, ibelieve} in October,1970,backed up by a very good career....

[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.

If 300 win shares is borderline, and Nettles has 321, doesn't that put him significantly beyond the point where he is not a borderline candidate, but, at least, a solid candidate in terms of HOF standards?

I'm not saying he was better than Brooks, but I'm saying that he was comparable, nearly as good, and Brooks was good enough so that anyone nearly as good shouldn't be lightly dismissed as a HOF candidate, as Nettles has been.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

Are we still at the point where we look at BA and disqualify someone for the HOF, ignoring OBP, walks, HRs, and other extra base hits, as well as the position he played? (Nettles was a Gold Glove quality third baseman; that should make him more valuble than a first baseman or an outfielder, shouldn't it?)

The slugging third baseman is a product of the second half of the twentieth century. With the exception of Harlond Clift, most of the third baseman before 1950 (including "Home Run" Baker) were glove men first, and, if offensive forces, hit for high averages, often without drawing many walks. (Pie Traynor's OBP of .362 is only .034 higher than Nettles' .328, and that's .362 without power in a high BA era.) After Eddie Matthews and Brooks Robinson, power became an expection in a third baseman.

Should Nettles be penalized for this? Should Nettles be penalized because his stats don't look as good at a cursory glance? If that's the case, then you'd better be arguing for Bill Madlock. Mad Dog hit .307 and won FOUR BATTING TITLES? Is Madlock, the high average guy, the one we should be enshrining?
My God, even Brooks Robinson didn't hit .307 lifetime; maybe we should yank his plaque out and replace it with the FOUR TIME BATTING KING. In the words of Mel Allen: "How about that!"

With all due respect, are you guys nuts? It is painful to think of the contortions that people go through to justify Nettles as a Hall of Famer. His low average is "simply the result of hitting fly balls?" So what? He never struck out 100 times. So what? It's not his fault that 3b is a power position since 1950. Huh? Didn't exactly see George Brett denied entry.

He's not in the HOF because his average was below .250, his OBP is only .329. Sure he had some pop, he was in the Top 10 in Slugging exactly one time in his career, and once was 7th in RBI. He finished 5th once in the MVP vote and 6th another time. That's it. And no one can say he was underrated with a straight face - he played in New York for goodness sake!

He was a good player. He was a very good fielder. But overall, he was not a great player. That's why he is not in the HOF, and you all can try and try, but that fact won't change.

And don't get me started about the Madlock instead of Brooks point.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by digger

And don't get me started about the Madlock instead of Brooks point.

But you SHOULD get started on that point. It goes to the heart of the discussion; the pct. of value batting average has in a player's overall offensive contributions, as well as the weight of defense vs. offense.

If Nettles had not had a cup of coffee in 1968, and had not played his part time seasons in 1987 and 1988, he would have finished over .250 with 379 HRs, in 18 full seasons of play. In addition, Nettles, as a young player, was trapped behing a fading Rich Rollins, and then behind Harmon Killebrew, who played third so RICH REESE?!?!? could play first. He didn't get a full year in until he was traded to Cleveland before the 1970 season, when he was 25, going on 26. (The O's nudged George Kell into retirement so that the 22 year old Brooksie could play, thus avoiding the fate of being trapped.)

If BA is your hangup, how, then, can you exclude Madlock? But if it's the entire offensive package, how can you exclude Nettles when you've included Robinson?

[poorme]

I'm pretty sure that I already stated batting average isn't the only, or even most important stat. But it is a big factor. Unless my math is fuzzy, BA goes a long way toward determining his slugging %, which isn't so hot either. His OBP is weak. I'm not going to argue this any further. He was basically Ron Cey, and I don't think Ron Cey should even be allowed to VISIT Cooperstown.

Bill Madlock is more worthy than Mike Pagliarulo...

OK - let me address your point.

I do not think Nettles should be excluded solely on the basis of a .248 BA. BA is not my "hangup".

I think he should be excluded because, overall, he was not a great player. He had power, but not overwhelming power. He had no speed, with only 32 career SBs. He was a very good defensive 3B, but no one considers him the best ever, although good defense at third goes a lot farther than at other positions. Despite playing on winning teams, no one ever considered him more than the 5th most valuable player in the league in any given year.

I agree with you that one particular stat should not disqualify a player for the HOF if the other factors to consider outweigh that stat. If Willie Mays hit .248, I'd put him in the hall. However, if you're going to have a .248 batting average and .329 OBP, you better be more than just good at the other parts of the game. You better be more than good. And Nettles wasn't more than good at the other parts of the game.

As for the "if he had played more at the beginning and less at the end...", as the saying goes, if my grandmother had two wheels, she'd be a bicycle. She doesn't, and she isn't. He didn't, so we can't consider it. Even if you take it into account, and Nettles' BA becomes .251, that's still way lower than Brooks' .267, who would probably benefit more than Nettles by the If he had... speculation.

So, what about Madlock? He had a .305 BA and 4 batting titles. And that's basically it. Considered a below average defensive third baseman, as I recall, with minimal power and only 163 homers in his career, he made the all star game 3 times and once came in 6th in the MVP voting, and in the top 10 one other time. If you hit .300, but aren't particularly good at the rest of the game, you don't make it. Nettles is out in part because of BA, but not entirely. The only reason to consider Madlock is BA, because the rest of his game was only average to good.

I guess the question to ask is, does anyone really think that Nettles or Madlock were as good as Brooks? I'd love to hear that justification.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by poorme
Unless my math is fuzzy, BA goes a long way toward determining his slugging %, which isn't so hot either.

I'm Fuzzy, not your math.

Slugging Pct. is the ratio of total bases to ABs. However, one can achieve total bases in ways that do not include ABs, so OBP is the critical stat in figuring slugging, not BA.

As for Ron Cey, Cey had a .354 OBP, with 316 lifetime HRs. He gets a bad rap for his defense, but his defense was often maligned because of the bad Dodger stadium infield; it was adequate, if not spectacular. Cey was a player who was trapped in the minor leagues, unnecessarily, before given a regular job at age 25. His stats need to take into account the fact that his best years were in Dodger Stadium.

Anyway, back to Nettles, and Nettles vs. Robinson: Let's look at how they stood on their World Series teams

1966 Orioles: Brooks 2nd best behind Frank Robinson
1976 Yanks: Graig second best behind Munson (ahead of Randoph)

1969 Orioles: Brooks 5th best behind F. Robby, Powell, Cuellar, McNally
1977 Yanks: Graig 3rd best behind Reggie, and Munson.

1970 Orioles: Brooks 5th best behind F. Robby, Powell, Palmer, and Cuellar
1978 Yanks: Graig 3rd best behind Guidry and Reggie.

1971 Orioles: Brooks 3rd best behind Palmer and McNally
1981 Yanks: Graig 3rd best behind Reggie and Guidry (although this was a fluke World Series team)

These are my opinions as to where Nettles ranked on those teams (and Robinson). I believe that Nettles was a more important element to Yankee pennants than Brooks was to Oriole pennants, and while that sounds somewhat like sacrelidge, I don't think it is unrealistic.

Well, even assuming Nettles was more important to Yankee pennants than Brooks was to Oriole pennants, I don't know what the significance of that is. That being said, I think you're completely wrong.

You rate Brooks as the 5th best Oriole on the '69 team, yet he finished 3rd in the league MVP voting. Your rate him 5th best on the '70 team, yet he finished 7th in MVP voting. You rate him 3rd best on the '71 team, but he finished 4th in the MVP voting. I'd be the first to say that the opinion of sportswriters isn't exactly infallible, but I do think that the evidence is there that Brooks was a little more important to those teams than you are giving him credit for.

As for Nettles in '81, third best on that team? Guidry was one of 4 starters with an ERA under 3.00. That was a team with Gossage and Davis. Plus, Winfield hit .294/.360/464, Nettles hit .244/332/398. His OPS was 740!

I only checked 1981.

I'll grant you that Nettles was an important player on some good teams. He was a good player. But if you ask 100 people, I'm pretty sure 99 will say Brooks was better. Let me ask you, do you think Cal was overrated too?