Tiger337

If Whitaker dove more, he'd be in the Hall of Fame! There may actually be some truth to that

Whitaker was legitimate though. I don't care about gold gloves, but Whitaker was an excellent fielder by any metric.

Whitaker was better than Kent. Kent hit a liitle better, but Whitaker's superior fielding more than made up for it. Sandberg was better, but Whitaker lasted longer. Grich was slighly better for a short period, but Whitaker had more good years. Grich missed more time to injuries. Utley was better, but Whitaker had more good years. I'd put them all in expect maybe Kent. I've always had Kent on the bubble. You talk about the end of Whitaker's career like it was nothing. He hit a lot better than most platoon players and it wasn't a strict platoon. He accumulated enough plate appearances to get 4.7, 4.1, 2.5, 1.5 WAR from age 35 to 38. Lots of great hitters can't do what he did in the end. He also could still handle middle infield capably up until age 37 which is rare. His consistency and endurance was pretty special and I'm not just saying that as a fan boy.

Lou was a a compiler, but he was the best compiler in the history of the game! Seriously, 17 years with an OPS over 100 for a middle infielder without ever having without ever having an MVP type season. Nobody else has done that.

This is the reason Lou Whitaker gives for not being in the Hall of Fame and it may be one of the biggest. I would think the lifers on the Veterans Committee loves guys that stay in the game. When Whitaker said that, Denny McLain (one of the interviewers) asked him in a seemingly accusatory tone why he he didn't stay in the game. Whitaker said that he was dedicating his time to his religon and family. I don't think McLain understood that. 😀 That whole interview was probably the best Whitaker interview ever. He never sounded that good when he was playing. The Drunk Lou Whitaker interview where he ripped Jack Morris was a good one too!

Better than Matt Anderson.

The guy that was GM for just one year?

Right, Based on who is in the Hall of Fame, both Whitaker and Trammell belong. They are not Honus Wagner and Rogers Hornsby, but they are as good or better than half the players at their position. Saying thst Player X belongs in the Hall of Fame because he's better than Baines is a weak argument, but when you are as good or better than half the players at your position, that's a legitimate argument. I also think it's OK for a voter to be a small Hall of Fame guy who won't vote for Whitaker, but they need to be consistent. If that same person votes for David Ortiz and Jim Rice, then then he's not being honest.

I was thinking about him just the other day. I remembered him as a big slugger back in the 80s. When I looked him up, I was surprised that he never came close 40 homers. There weren't as many home runs back then, but I thought he would have reached that mark at least once. He was really good in his prime though - more of an all around hitter with high a batting average, lots of doubles, 30 homers per year. He was also a good defensive first basemen. He was also very consistent. He had almost the same OPS+ every year from 1981-1984: 1981 156 1982 156 1983 156 1984 157

There is no doubt that innings pitched for starters has become an important stat.

I don't think either one is clear cut. Whitaker is a unicorn. He had more very good seasons than almost any infielder in history, but never had a great season. If someone thinks that great seasons are the qualification for HoF, then they wouldn't vote for Whitaker. That is fine as long as they are consistent. I put a lot of weight on career value and constency. Kent just doesn't have enough overall career value for me to say that he's clear cut. He is not the worst Hall of Famer, but I think he gets overrated because of his Bonds-aided RBI totals. I don't think Whitaker is shunned just because of his personality. I think that voters just won't look beyond hits, homers, all-star games and world series titles.

Kershaw was the more dominant pitcher most years. Verlander had more career value which is what WAR measures. If you are more interested in peak value or dominance, then WAA (Wins Above Average) is one way to measure that. Kershaw finishes ahead of him in that. Pitchers are even harder to rank than hitters though because their role has changed so much throughout history.

WAR per 162 game average is not particulatly interesting and it kind of goes against the point of WAR which is a cumulative stat. Cabrera will be first ballot because of how great of a hitter he was at his peak. I really wish his last 7 years were not trash, because he looked like he was going to be in the Hank Aaron or Frank Robinson class.

Bonds batted third and Kent batted fourth in the years when Kent was getting a lot of RBI. I just looked it up on b-ref to make sure I was remembering correctly. I also remember they gave Kent credit for protecting Bonds which was silly. Kent did what he did...he was very good, but was overrated because writers love RBI. He's not the worst Hall of Famer ever, but there are a couple of second basemen who should have been in before him. One of them is Whitaker. I am not sure what point you are trying to make with Trammell batting behind Whitaker.

As you probably remember, Cash also had a rep as a good first baseman. It's hard to measure firstbase defense, but the stats back up his reputation, at least in the 60s before he aged.

I care if he wasn't as great of a fielder or base runner. Those are parts of the game and they count in determining a player's overall value. People say that they don't care about fielding and base running and then they complain when the see fielders making bad plays or baserunning mistakes. I used WAR in this case because Kent and Whitaker were similar types of players playing the same position and about the same number of games and WAR does a good job of showing that Whitaker was a better overall player. And Kent was not much better as a hitter (123 OPs+ vs 118 OPS+). Kent's value got pumped up because of his RBI totals. It's not too hard accumulating a lot of RBI when you bat behind Barry Bonds!

Olson got 4.5 runs of support per game. He also allowed just 2.4 ER per game in his losses. So, he seems to have been unlucky compared to Mize.

Them guys aint sharing nothing with you.

I'm a fan too. He might even be better than you.

Flaherty averaged 0.67 runs in in the games Tigers won Olson 1.17 I wouldn't have guessed it was quite that low across the board though, so it was an interesting observation on your part. The Tigers scored 4.5 runs in all of Skubal's starts and 6.0 in Mize's starts. Skubal never gave up more than 4 runs in any of the losses, so he likely would have won more games with more run support. ER allowed per game in Mize's losses 3.2. 2.0 in Skubal's losses.

Mize got trememdous run support in his games last year which contributed to his deceptive W/L. He was OK though. If he pitches the same this year, I'll be reasonably happy.

Kent was a worse choice than Jones. Jones was questionnable and I wouldn't put him in, but he is perhaps the best defensive outfielder ever - better defensive numbers than Mays. So, at least he's got that. Kent played the same position as Whitaker and was 20 wins behind him in WAR.

Park effects are not annual. They are averaged over 3-5 years. As for the innings. are you talking annual or career? Given how difficult it is for pitchers to pitch deep into games now, I believe innings have become more valuable now and should be rewarded more than ever for single seasons. For historic WAR, the value of the cumulative effect of WAR is questionable. It depends on whether you favor peak value or career value. If you like peak value more, then you can use WAA (Wins above average). In this case, a pitcher can not accumulate value unless he is better than average. I do agree WAR should not be gospel and that it is overused

That's because you're an offensive snob.

Both Iwakuma and Sale had better ERA+ and K/BB than Scherzer. Scherzer was surely penalized for playing in a pitcher friendly park.