How do the two systems treat these two second basemen differently?
I make no bones about the fact that the Hall of Fame Index is not completely revolutionary. Other people have come up things that are similar. In some cases, these systems were developed at roughly the same time. In other cases, the index was a response to limitations that I saw with the systems in place. Inevitably, many will compare it with a system called JAWS that can be found on baseball-reference.com. JAWS and the index came about at around the same time.
I could ignore it, but that would make little sense. I respect Jay Jaffe and it makes perfect sense to compare what we have done. Jaffe’s system only uses BWAR and he averages the career value and the peak value instead of adding it, but the results are usually pretty similar. However, there is one major difference between our systems outside of the use of FWAR and BWAR.
The biggest difference comes in the length of the peaks. Jaffe uses seven seasons where the index uses ten seasons. Seven season seems odd at first but it really isn’t. A typical career lasts about 15 seasons, so seven seasons represents half of that career. That would seem like a reasonable portion of a career to consider a peak. I chose ten seasons because you need to play ten seasons to be eligible for the Hall of Fame.
Normally BWAR and FWAR aren’t all that different. Normally a ten year peak and seven year peak do not radically change the scope of a career. Occasionally it does. Occasionally guys fall off the table between years seven and ten. Our last two second basemen are examples of what happens when a player falls off the table between years seven and ten. It can dramatically effect where a player stands in the group.
There are always more than one way to look at numbers. In this case there are two ways to look at the numbers. From 100,000 feet, both players are considerably short of the median in both systems. So, one could easily just assume that the conversation should end there. Normally it would, but both players are in the ballot stage of their Hall of Fame journey. Their rankings at the position might matter to some people.
Most players are not radically different when looking at JAWS and the index. Dustin Pedroia is one of those cases where things are radically different. For some, being 19th could be enough to sway their vote if they wanted to believe JAWS over the index. I wouldn’t blame them. Jaffe is a lot more credentialed and well-known. However, the 24th best second baseman belongs nowhere near the Hall of Fame.
In order to settle this dispute we will go through the normal tests in addition to the index. After all, the index is not the final authority here. We start with the counting numbers because that is where most of the voters begin their cases as well.
Both players come up short in most of the categories, but Kinsler comes closer to the Hall of Fame standard. They are both contemporaries, so the whole idea of different eras and all of that really doesn’t matter as much. If you were to go based just on these numbers then you would go with Kinsler.
That is particularly true when we consider other numbers like walks. Funny how the index considers them almost identical. Yet, even within the index there are nuances where we can get disagreement. Before, we get into those, let’s take a look at the numbers.
Just like with JAWS, we can split the index into career value and peak value. Depending on who you ask, one of those is more important the than the other. I usually rest on the fame portion of everything. I find peak value more compelling than career value, but some are exactly the opposite. So, even though both players are basically the same in total index, Pedroia has the better peak value numbers.
That can also be seen in the other tests and that is why we go through them all. If a player is similar to Hall of Famers more often than not then they probably should be a Hall of Famer. Since both of them are borderline Hall of Famers we will see some areas where they are similar and some areas where they aren’t.
These numbers usually cut in more than one direction. Pedroia is closer to the median in the percentage stats, but comes up a little short in runs created. That is because he fell off a cliff once he reached that seven year mark and could not remain healthy. Kinsler was the better base runner. Usually ten runs is equal to one win, so he was approximately three wins better as a base runner.
Are three wins enough to make the difference we see at the plate? I highly doubt it and since Kinsler’s career was a fairly normal length we are beginning to realize why he came up short when compared with the median in the index. However, we are just getting started with the analysis.
Again, Pedroia comes out a little better in this category as well. Fortunately, since both were modern second baseman we can also look at their Fielding Bible metrics. Rfield and defensive runs saved are the same in this instance for Pedroia with 99. He had six seasons with ten or more defensive runs saved.
Kinsler had 88 defensive runs saved. So, by any means we look, Pedroia was about a win better defensively as well. Not coincidentally, Kinsler had only five seasons with ten or more defensive runs saved. So, by any means we know that Pedroia was the better peak value player offensively and defensively.
I’ve mentioned Bill James before. He asked a series of questions in his landmark book “Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?”. He asked if a player was the best player on his team. He asked whether a player was the best player at his position. He asked whether a player was the best player in the league. We have had Hall of Famers that have said no to some or all of those questions. It doesn’t mean it was a mistake to put them in the Hall of Fame.
We have also had players that said yes to all of those questions and those players aren’t necessarily Hall of Famers. Kinsler is firmly in the first category. He may have been the best Tiger or best Ranger on an isolated occasion, but he has the profile of a good, but not great player. Pedroia won an MVP. Whether it was deserved or not is questionable, but his BWAR points match his BBWAA points.
In two of the three tests, both players come up short. They were above the median defensively, but that might not be enough to get them over the top. In these instances, we usually employ one more test to see if we can make a deciding vote. Let’s see what they did in the playoffs.
Pedroia has rings. Kinsler does not. I suppose that is just one of the results from the test we can look at. Pedroia has two rings with the Red Sox and is one of the principle guys that was able to help them break the vaunted curse of the Bambino. Kinsler got close with the Tigers and Rangers, but was not able get over the hump.
Yet, his numbers were better, so you could easily justify giving him credit for his postseason performance and not Pedroia. I personally am not inclined to change my opinions on either player based on these numbers alone. I feel they are both short of the Hall of Fame standard, but for different reasons. Pedroia just needed one or two more seasons. Kinsler wasn’t quite good enough.
As far as JAWS is concerned, I am certain that Jaffe would likely come to similar conclusions on these players. So, at the end of the day the systems are not all that different most of the time. However, occasionally there are differences and we should highlight them and not run away from them.