Who else is on the outside looking in?
One of the things we discovered when looking at the third basemen from the 1970s and 1980s was that they did not quite get to the Hall of Fame median in the index. This is obviously where things get tricky. They were all certainly better than some of the players in the Hall of Fame. However, that doesn’t mean that any of them should necessarily be Hall of Famers.
The same will true of the earlier third basemen. Now, earlier is loosely defined as playing a majority of their careers before 1980 or all of their careers before that point. It is a hodgepodge group as we try to capture all of the third basemen that exist within the 80/120 zone of third basemen. We will cover the more modern candidates next time.
The counting numbers answer the why question. In other words, why are these guys not in the Hall of Fame. It’s a different answer for all three of them, but I can guarantee it comes down to the voters missing something. Granted, when we see the index we will see plenty of justification not to put them in, but I guarantee THOSE reasons are not the reasons why the BBWAA originally rejected them.
What they all have in common is that they had a stronger case when you went away from the standard numbers. Boyer was a really good defender for instance and both Bando and Hack had strong OBPs in spite of a more pedestrian average (Hack’s was pedestrian given the time period). Notice what happens when we add walks to hits for times on base.
Boyer: 2143 hits + 713 walks = 2856 times on base
Bando: 1790 hits +1031 walks = 2821 times on base
Hack: 2193 hits + 1092 walks= 3185 times on base
The name of the game is avoiding outs. Obviously there is a whole other element of how much damage you do with your outs, but a cursory look here shows how similar they are in avoiding outs and therefore providing for run creation opportunities. That’s not seen when we only include the basic counting numbers.
If we are breaking our analysis into questions then the index sits comfortably in the “what” category. This is where these guys are in terms of value. All of them are considerably short of the median, but they fall well above the 80 percent range. So, they are legitimately borderline Hall of Famers. The index can describe a lot of things, but it does not answer the why question.
The last three tests do that for us. Why did they fall short? It could be a number of answers that start with the offensive and fielding numbers, but end with whether they had the durability to get there. The MVP points give us a clue in that department. If we add it together then we see exactly why they came up short. This matters because the why informs us on how we should proceed. That always depends on the individual voter, but everyone values hitting, fielding, and longevity differently.
If we pay close enough attention then this table shows us both the quality and quantity argument. The runs created shows us the quantity. Each of these guys was probably two to three seasons short of the median. They are actually fairly close to the quality of the median. Yes, they aren’t there in any statistical category, but they aren’t drastically behind, so it would appear at first blush that their shortcomings were in longevity and durability.
The striking similarities in value are also important. There is a difference between mathematical value and style. Hack and Bando were very different hitters. Yet, they were nearly identical in terms of value. Obviously, preferences come into play and the team context also comes into play. What the Athletics needed and the Cubs needed were far different.
Hack’s numbers deserve some context. By sheer definition, he wasn’t a bad defender. He was an average defender. Average defenders have value just like average hitters have value. The question comes when you start comparing him with the median and just your concept of a Hall of Famer. Depending on the position, that mental picture could include a strong defender. He simply wasn’t one of those.
Bando and Boyer are there. Of course, the trouble is that the process of selecting Gold Gloves was very flawed until recent times. Both could have snagged more than they did and even if they couldn’t, failure to win Gold Gloves doesn’t mean you aren’t a good defender. It just means at least one other person was better. Still, Boyer is downright better than the typical Hall of Fame third basemen defensively and Bando is right on par.
The awards voting shows us two very important things. First, it helps answer that why question by looking at their level of dominance in a numerical way. When considering the BWAR points, all three were within the range of the median Hall of Famer which means they were as good as those guys when they were at their best. This lends more credence to the idea that they were just two or three seasons short.
The second thing it does ia show us the gap between who they really were and who the MVP voters thought they were. The MVP voters and the Hall of Fame voters are the same voters. So, if someone is under-appreciated as they are playing then they will likely be under-appreciated after they get done playing. All three fall into that category as well.
The playoff numbers don’t fit in any official question we have asked above. It is more about whether there are considerations that would override our perception of the player one way or another. If someone is a borderline Hall of Famer, then their playoff performance matters much more. I have to say I was surprised at the volume. I would have thought that Boyer would have had more opportunities and Hack fewer, but that shows what perception brings to the table.
Where the rubber meets the road is when we get to Bando. Bando won three consecutive World Series titles in what could be the defining dynasty of the 1970s. He was essentially a five win player in each of those three seasons. So, he obviously played a very crucial role on those teams. Was he the most important player? Most people would probably say Reggie Jackson or Catfish Hunter. Still, an argument can be made for him.
This question gets repeated a lot for a number of different players. Is being an important player on a historical team enough to be recognized? That’s a hard question to answer and might have to come on a case by case basis. You get the same question with players like George Foster, Jorge Posada, and Bernie Williams. Is being a good player on a dynastic team enough to push a guy over the top?