A familiar name goes under the HOF Index microscope
Author’s Note: This is part of a series I am writing on my substack page around my Hall of Fame index. I am including ones here that have a connection to the Astros. Most will not include current Astros, but serve as a place where you can get a diversion from thinking about the current team or if you just want some extra reading material.
There are a few notable catchers I did not mention in the outside looking in. That is because they are unique within the index and a larger point is begging to be made. Essentially, scouts have lived for nearly two centuries and while technology and information has evolved, their methods and thinking processes haven’t really evolved all that much.
Essentially, any position player can be broken down into five tools: the ability to hit, the ability to hit for power, speed, general fielding ability (range), and arm strength. Obviously the general importance of each depends on the position. We don’t generally care if catchers are slow for instance. However, for the balance of history these tools have been treated as if they are equally important.
Important is such a dirty word anyway. How exactly do we define important? All of us have viewed a game where a situation arose that demanded all of these skills. You had the infamous Barry Bonds throw that failed to nail an intolerably slow Sid Bream. We’ve seen Martin Maldonado throw out would be base stealers in the playoffs at key times here in Houston.
However, there is a far cry difference between important and valuable. Important is a non-specific term that really can’t be quantified. Valuable is a mathematical term we can quantify. Some skills are more valuable than others. Teams and fans instinctively know this without mentioning it. We pay more for power hitters than singles hitters. However, we also see frequent comments about say Jake Meyers or Chas McCormick’s arms as an area of concern. The range they have saves far more runs than their arms cost the team.
What we are seeing at the catcher position is that pitch framing is a more valuable skill than anything else a catcher does. It doesn’t mean those other things aren’t important. It just means that framing accounts for more runs either way. As was noted in a previous article, Fangraphs considers pitch framing more than Baseball-reference.com. So, some of these players look far different in terms of value and that causes a bit of an issue.
The Hall of Fame Index
Russell Martin: 38.9 BWAR, 54.5 FWAR, 33.4 BWAR10, 48.2 FWAR10, 175.0 index
Brian McCann: 32.0 BWAR, 54.5 FWAR, 29.0 BWAR10, 49.5 FWAR10, 165.0 index
Jason Kendall: 41.7 BWAR, 37.4 FWAR, 38.1 BWAR10, 35.2 FWAR10, 152.4 index
We see McCann and Martin in the same boat. They were apparently excellent pitch framers, but that was not considered in BWAR. That presents a number of issues. We will get to awards voting later. We have BWAR top 10 finished but not FWAR top ten finishes for instance.
Most importantly though, it changes dramatically how we view their defense. Martin was good according to BWAR, but was great according to FWAR. McCann is even more extreme in that regard. Kendall is the opposite. His pitch framing actually dings him a little bit. We ultimately will go through the same tests we have gone through with the other catchers.
Offensive Numbers
Brian McCann: 110 OPS+, .347 rOBA, .548 OW%, 922 runs created
Russell MartinL 101 OPS+, .338 rOBA, .490 OW%, 797 runs created
Jason Kendall: 95 OPS+, .347 rOBA, .515 OW%, 1112 runs created
Here we get to a separate question. How valuable is longevity? Jason Kendall clearly did it longer because he wasn’t any better than the other two, but created nearly 200 more runs than McCann and over 300 more than Martin. Does that makes up for the deficiencies in value?
As difficult as this is to explain, average performance has value. Average catchers are by definition better than half of the league. This becomes particularly important at positions where replacements are harder to find. That is one of the intricate factors in replacement value. What exactly does a typical AAA catcher look like? Teams often employ a second catcher that is particularly worse than the regular.
Therefore, if you are average for 15 seasons, that is considerably more valuable than being average for 12. Is that enough to get him over the top? I suppose in some people’s minds it does. McCann and Martin are a little different in that they were average or just above average in comparison with other big league players. That means they were decidedly above average or even good in comparison with catchers historically.
Fielding Numbers
Russell Martin: 56 Rfield, 16.5 DWAR, 30.2 FG, 166 TZ/FRM
Brian McCann: -32 RField, 7.9 DWAR, 28.9 FG, 166 TZ/FRM
Jason Kendall: 17 Rfield, 13.9 DWAR, 10.7 FG, -34 TZ/FRM
Remember that FRM stands for framing runs. This is where the rubber meets the road. Kendall was obviously good (not great) at things like blocking the plate, throwing out runners, and even calling a game. He wasn’t good at framing pitches. When we look at the total package we are likely looking at a below average fielding catcher.
Yes, I rattled off three or four sets of skills many people find important, but those skills combined do not bring the value that pitch framing does. Smart organizations have figured this out and have prioritized proficient pitch framing in their catchers. Some have taken extreme measures and have prioritized it in the face of substandard traditional catching skills AND offensive production.
It’s a math game at the end of the day. Teams have to consider how many extra runs a framer gives you as compared to how many runs his other skills may cost you. Russell Martin goes from being a good defensive catcher to a great one. Brian McCann goes from being below average to somewhere between very good and excellent.
Awards Voting
Russell Martin: 3 BBWAA, 6 BWAR
Brian McCann: 2 BBWAA, 3 BWAR
Jason Kendall: 0 BBWAA, 0 BWAR
This isn’t to say that you can’t be a Hall of Famer if you were never one of the top ten players in the league, but it does complicate your case considerably. McCann and Martin are in a more precarious position. FWAR said they were among the most valuable players in the league. We didn’t track FWAR top tens.
This is where we go back to being average or above average and it having value. The ultimate question is how much value you place on being average or above average for any period of time. Most voters want a sign of greatness. After all, it is the Hall of FAME and not the Hall of Decent for a very long time. Of course, I could easily be wrong on this front.
Playoff Performance
Russell Martin: 235 PA, .191/.306/327, 6 HR, 24 Runs, 22 RBI, 1 SB
Brian McCann: 143 PA, .172/.252/.297, 4 HR, 8 Runs 16 RBI, 0 SB
Jason Kendall: 51 PA, .224/.255/.245, 0 HR, 1 Run, 3 RBI, 0 SB
One of these players has a ring. Did Brian McCann’s pitch framing help the Houston Astros win the 2017 World Series? I suppose an argument could be made for that. The bigger argument is how we view playoff performance as a whole. I personally use it as a tie breaker, but others put a lot more emphasis on it.
I have two fundamental issues with that. For one, some players played on bad teams and therefore had fewer opportunities. Is this their fault? Secondly, players from the 1990s on naturally will get more playoff opportunities than players before. This is particularly true for players prior to 1969.
None of the performances here scream “give me a plaque!” but I could be wrong. Maybe McCann’s ring throws him over the top in some people’s minds. Maybe some people were inclined to vote for one or more of these guys before seeing these numbers. Playoff performance exists outside the index and therefore is pretty much in the eye of the beholder.