Willie Randolph

[Cowtipper]

Since my Bert Campaneris thread spurned so much interest, I thought I'd see how you guys felt about Randolph's eligibility as a player. According to BR, he is similar to both Dave Bancroft and Pee Wee Reese statistically, and they are both in the HOF. He was a six time All-Star and even a Silver Slugger once. What do you think?

[DoubleX]

Randolph was a very good player whose career is generally underated. That being said, I think he's just on the outside of the line, but certainly close enough to have a legitimate discussion about his candidacy.

Also, I don't think citing Dave Bancroft as a similar player is a particular good argument for Randolph to be in.

[RuthMayBond]

Since my Bert Campaneris thread spurned so much interest
Oh, it wasn't all THAT bad ;) :laugh :hide: :p

[Captain Cold Nose]

I'd put Randolph behind Bobby Grich, Lou Whitaker and probably Frank White among his direct contemporaries in his own league. Good player. Yankee captain. Not a HOF'er.

[PVNICK]

Very good player, who always seemed to get on base to start Yankee rallies, and usually by working a walk. Class act. Just a very solid, pro's pro. As an aside he may have been one of the first players used as a "double leadoff hitter" when Martin batted him 9th from time to time for that specific purpose.

[KCGHOST]

I waiver between "No" and "Maybe, but chose "No". He wouldn't be a terrible selection, but he is clearly behind Whitaker, Grich, and Alomar. In five years he will be behind Biggio. Kent will come along later. We also have some old-timers that are probably better (Hardy Richardson, Cupid Childs, Larry Doyle, and Fred Dunlap).

[DoubleX]

I'd put Randolph behind Bobby Grich, Lou Whitaker and probably Frank White among his direct contemporaries in his own league. Good player. Yankee captain. Not a HOF'er.

Really Frank White? I think White is also underrated and he was better defensively than Randolph, but I think Randolph was good fielder in his own right and good enough of a hitter over his career to make him an overall better player than White.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Really Frank White? I think White is also underrated and he was better defensively than Randolph, but I think Randolph was good fielder in his own right and good enough of a hitter over his career to make him an overall better player than White.

It's really close. I admittedly need to take a closer look, I followed KC closer when they were both playing than the Yankees and that probably is what led me to that.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'd put Randolph behind Bobby Grich, Lou Whitaker and probably Frank White among his direct contemporaries in his own league. Good player. Yankee captain. Not a HOF'er.

I rate Randolph ahead of Frank White.

I also rate Randolph ahead of Billy Herman, Bill Mazeroski, Red Schoendienst, and Johnny Evers.

That's what complicates Randolph's case. He's not as good as the best 2B outside the HOF, but he's better than a number of guys who are in.

[538280]

Randolph is the kind of player who would absolutely be in the HOF if he played in the 20s/30s. Doesn't mean he really deserves it (he's very close, but I don't know that I'd quite put him in), but he would be in. I'd say he's better than Campaneris, but I'd say Grich and Whitaker deserve to be enshrined for sure, and before Randolph.

[AstrosFan]

Just out of curiosity, how do people rate Randolph as compared to Bobby Doerr and Joe Gordon?

[Cougar]

I voted maybe. To me, Randolph is the line on second basemen...if you're better than Randolph, you should be in, if you're not as good, you're out.

If there was no maybe choice...I'd probably say yes. His lack of any power at all makes it tough, but he did everything else exceptionally well, had plenty of intangibles, etc.

To answer AstroFan's question, I think both Doerr and Gordon are plainly better. They both had much more pop, and were probably better fielders too.

It seems like he may have retired with a little left in the tank; does anyone know why he decided not to pursue a job after 1992? Or did he, and there were no takers at his price? Was he hurt? Did he just not want to be a utility guy who faded while people watched?

[Fuzzy Bear]

It seems like he may have retired with a little left in the tank; does anyone know why he decided not to pursue a job after 1992? Or did he, and there were no takers at his price? Was he hurt? Did he just not want to be a utility guy who faded while people watched?

Randolph took the job of Yankee 3B coach upon retirement. He was always a logical candidate to be a manager someday. Randolph was a coach a long time before becoming a manager, and he interviewed, as I recall, for several positions before getting the Met job. It's clear as to what his aspirations. Here's a quick bio of Randolph, discussing his post-playing career in part. ( http://biography.jrank.org/pages/2819/Randolph-Willie.html)

[soberdennis]

I loved Willie. To me those teams in the late 70s were special
But HOF. I think there are better choices on those Yankee teams-Munson, Chambliss, Rivers, Lyle, Gossage. Not that any of those I just mentioned deserve induction, but I think better arguments can be made for them over Randolph.
Sure Willie was better than some that are already in. But that does not necessarily sway my vote.
Anyway, I voted no.

[RuthMayBond]

I think there are better choices on those Yankee teams-Chambliss, Rivers. Not that any of those I just mentioned deserve induction, but I think better arguments can be made for them over Randolph.
Chambliss and Rivers probably aren't among the fifty best at their position

[DoubleX]

Randolph is the kind of player who would absolutely be in the HOF if he played in the 20s/30s.

I don't know. One could argue that Randolph's career is similar to Billy Herman's, but is that so different than Buddy Myer, who is not in? Del Pratt is probably not too dissimilar either, though with a shorter career.

[Cougar]

I think he's more like Nellie Fox with plate discipline, and not quite as good a glove...very good (Willie) rather than great (Nellie).

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't know. One could argue that Randolph's career is similar to Billy Herman's, but is that so different than Buddy Myer, who is not in? Del Pratt is probably not too dissimilar either, though with a shorter career.

Second base is, without question, the position in the HOF that has the largest gray area. It has the largest group of comparable players where some are in the HOF while a player of similar value to each of the "ins" is not in the HOF.

Billy Herman is in; Buddy Myer is out.
Bobby Doerr is in; Joe Gordon is out.
Bill Mazeroski is in; Frank White is out.
Nellie Fox is in; Willie Randolph is out.
Tony Lazzeri is in; Bobby Grich is out.

We've got Mazeroski and Lazzeri at the bottom of the HOF. But we've got Grich, Larry Doyle, Del Pratt, and Lou Whitaker outside the HOF.

Bill James did an essay in his 2000 Historical Baseball Abstract in which he compared Randolph to Mazeroski. What he did, essentially was compare Randolph's edge in walks with Maz' edge in DPs. A walk, reasoned James, adds a runner; a DP takes away an extra runner. Maz has a 1706-1547 edge in DPs; he's erased 159 extra baserunners. But Randolph had a 1243-447 edge in walks; that's 796 more times on base than Maz. That's 637 more runners on base for Randolph.

Maz is in the HOF because he is considered by many to be the greatest defensive second baseman of all time. Some consider him the greatest defensive player at any position of all time. This may be true, but it begs the question of how much is glove work really worth? We speak of defense as the equal of offense almost automatically, but most of defense is pitching; very little of it is glove work, if the truth be known.

Maz beats Randolph on defensive stats, but Randolph actually leads (by a tiny margin) Frank White, the recognized premier defensive second baseman of Randolph's time, in both range factor and fielding percentage. This is surprising, but one wonders if White won some of his Gold Gloves on reputation. Randolph also has an edge in range factors over Lou Whitaker and Harold Reynolds, although Whitaker has a tiny edge in fielding percentage, and Reynolds is .001 behind Randolph in career fielding percentage. I think it might be accurate to say that Willie Randolph is the best fielding 2B since the 1950s that never won a Gold Glove.

I'm not sure that any of this bolsters Randolph's case so much as it makes the inductions of others appear to be mistakes. Randolph's case is not a ridiculous case; he'd not be the worst second baseman in the HOF, and he's certainly not be the worst player in the HOF. But he's no more than borderline; he's not like a Joe Gordon or a Larry Doyle; guys that were considered to be top stars in their best years. I'm still on the fence with him. I won't complain if he gets in, but to push hard for him while Grich, Whitaker, Gordon, and even Myer wait is a bit much for now.

[RuthMayBond]

Second base is, without question, the position in the HOF that has the largest gray area. It has the largest group of comparable players where some are in the HOF while a player of similar value to each of the "ins" is not in the HOF.

Billy Herman is in; Buddy Myer is out.Myer may not be that similar

<Maz is in the HOF because he is considered by many to be the greatest defensive second baseman of all time.>

But that's not even definite

<Some consider him the greatest defensive player at any position of all time.>

Some forget Ozzie

<Randolph actually leads (by a tiny margin) Frank White, the recognized premier defensive second baseman of Randolph's time, in both range factor and fielding percentage.>

Which are spurious stats

<I think it might be accurate to say that Willie Randolph is the best fielding 2B since the 1950s that never won a Gold Glove.>

I concur

[DoubleX]

Second base is, without question, the position in the HOF that has the largest gray area. It has the largest group of comparable players where some are in the HOF while a player of similar value to each of the "ins" is not in the HOF.

Billy Herman is in; Buddy Myer is out.
Bobby Doerr is in; Joe Gordon is out.
Bill Mazeroski is in; Frank White is out.
Nellie Fox is in; Willie Randolph is out.
Tony Lazzeri is in; Bobby Grich is out.

We've got Mazeroski and Lazzeri at the bottom of the HOF. But we've got Grich, Larry Doyle, Del Pratt, and Lou Whitaker outside the HOF.

Bill James did an essay in his 2000 Historical Baseball Abstract in which he compared Randolph to Mazeroski. What he did, essentially was compare Randolph's edge in walks with Maz' edge in DPs. A walk, reasoned James, adds a runner; a DP takes away an extra runner. Maz has a 1706-1547 edge in DPs; he's erased 159 extra baserunners. But Randolph had a 1243-447 edge in walks; that's 796 more times on base than Maz. That's 637 more runners on base for Randolph.

Maz is in the HOF because he is considered by many to be the greatest defensive second baseman of all time. Some consider him the greatest defensive player at any position of all time. This may be true, but it begs the question of how much is glove work really worth? We speak of defense as the equal of offense almost automatically, but most of defense is pitching; very little of it is glove work, if the truth be known.

Maz beats Randolph on defensive stats, but Randolph actually leads (by a tiny margin) Frank White, the recognized premier defensive second baseman of Randolph's time, in both range factor and fielding percentage. This is surprising, but one wonders if White won some of his Gold Gloves on reputation. Randolph also has an edge in range factors over Lou Whitaker and Harold Reynolds, although Whitaker has a tiny edge in fielding percentage, and Reynolds is .001 behind Randolph in career fielding percentage. I think it might be accurate to say that Willie Randolph is the best fielding 2B since the 1950s that never won a Gold Glove.

I'm not sure that any of this bolsters Randolph's case so much as it makes the inductions of others appear to be mistakes. Randolph's case is not a ridiculous case; he'd not be the worst second baseman in the HOF, and he's certainly not be the worst player in the HOF. But he's no more than borderline; he's not like a Joe Gordon or a Larry Doyle; guys that were considered to be top stars in their best years. I'm still on the fence with him. I won't complain if he gets in, but to push hard for him while Grich, Whitaker, Gordon, and even Myer wait is a bit much for now.

Good post Fuzzy Bear. For me, while I think there are a number of second basemen outside that were better than say Bill Mazeroski, his inclusion into the Hall doesn't bother me as much as some of the other lower tier Hall of Famers. He has a strong case for best defensive player at his position, which is an important defensive position, and he was decent enough offensively at 2B in a historical context, for his induction to not be so outrageous IMO. I wouldn't personally put him in, but the Hall honors a lot more than just statistics, and Mazeroski's claim to best ever defensively at 2B would seem to fall in line with that.

I think you pretty much mentioned all the post-1900/non Negro League 2Bmen not in the Hall that I consider within the realm of reasonable discussion. For me, I think Randolph is the line. I would put Grich, Gordon, and Whitaker in without a second thought, I'd also put Doyle in as well though I'd have to think about that a little bit more (is he that different than Tony Lazzeri?). Randolph, Myer, and Pratt are all just on the outside (with Frank White next, but further back), though I'd still consider them better choices than at least Bill Mazeroski, Johnny Evers, Tony Lazzeri, and Red Schoendienst.

[538280]

I don't know. One could argue that Randolph's career is similar to Billy Herman's, but is that so different than Buddy Myer, who is not in? Del Pratt is probably not too dissimilar either, though with a shorter career.

If Randolph played then, when the league averages were around .290, he probably hits around .315 (.308 just putting his relative BA in a .290 context, plus a little for league quality and centralizing of stats over time). I don't think they're keeping out a .315 hitter who also was a very good defensive player. Myer didn't play as long and wasn't all that special defensively.

Just something that I disagree with, Buddy Myer is not comparable to Billy Herman. Herman is far better. The only way they are similar is if you choose to focus solely on hitting numbers, devoid of any kind of context. Herman played in the NL of the time which had quite a bit lower offensive levels, in the context of their league (and park, which Myer played in a pitcher's park and Herman a hitter's park, but the offensive environment for Herman was still quite a bit lower). The difference between them is about 30-40 runs vs. average on offense. Herman was better offensively. Defensively, it's not even close-Herman was one of the best while Myer wasn't anything special. They were similar in type, maybe, but Herman was clearly a lot better and there is a clear distinction of who should be in the HOF and shouldn't.

[DoubleX]

If Randolph played then, when the league averages were around .290, he probably hits around .315 (.308 just putting his relative BA in a .290 context, plus a little for league quality and centralizing of stats over time). I don't think they're keeping out a .315 hitter who also was a very good defensive player. Myer didn't play as long and wasn't all that special defensively.

The length of Myer's career may have been a product of his era. If Randolph played back then, his career may have been shorter as well as he would not have benefitted from modern conditioning. So I think offensively at least, Randolph's career would have looked a lot like Myer's.

I also agree that Billy Herman was a better player, but I don't think the leap is that huge between Herman and Myer. Herman also had a fairly short career - he only had 500 more plate appearances than Myer. Herman's OPS+ was 112, Myer's was 108, so the gap isn't that huge offensively. Neither had much power, Myer was the better baserunner, and Herman the better defender and certainly a very good one, but Myer wasn't all that bad defensively. It doesn't seem like much of coincidence to me that Herman is listed as Myer's most similar player, and Myer as Herman's second most similar (Joe Sewell is first). Yeah, I think the difference is enough to put Herman over the line and Myer under, but I don't think the gap is that big.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I would put Myer in, given just how comparable his batting stats are to Herman.

Myer played for a team (the Senators) that is under-honored. Herman played for a team (the Brooklyn Dodgers) that is somewhat over-honored. Herman also had a career after baseball as a coach and manager, so he stayed in the spotlight. One of Myer's very best years came in 1943, at a time when competition was less than stellar, due to players in the service.

As far as defense goes, I don't see in the defensive stats why Herman should have such an edge over Myer to where Herman is in but Myer is out. Herman has an edge on range, but Myer has an edge on fielding percentage. In addition, Myer spent two years at shortstop, a more demanding position, where he performed slightly above average. I might give a slight advantage to Herman, but not to the point where one is clearly in and one is out.

Where Randolph rates compared to these guys remains to be seen. In some ways, he's a modern day black Billy Herman, given his visible career after playing as a coach and manager. Randolph's HOF star may rise over time, and he may be a future VC pick; the coaching and managing gigs help a potential HOFer score points with voters.

[DoubleX]

If nothing else, I have to say that I'm glad we're talking about Buddy Myer. I don't think he's quite a Hall of Famer, but I don't think he's that far off, and I think is extremely overlooked.