It was apparently obvious to many of us who remember that we were watching a uniquely great player when Rickey was a Yankee. However, the media’s coverage of him was decidedly negative during his Yankees tenure (not just 89 before he was traded, a period that Bruce recalls above). They didn’t get him and seemed to resent him. Later when he broke the all-time SB record, I recall how much slack he got for his “greatest of all-time” remark, when it was clear to me that he didn’t intend it in the way it was portrayed. It’s interesting now seeing the establishment media – largely comprised of different people – give Rickey his due not only as a player but as a person. While it’s somewhat revisionist, I’m glad to see Rickey receive the proper acclaim.

(maybe Diane would know… >;)

At one time I thought that Winshares mght be ‘The Stat’ for across the board player comparison/evaluation… but it seems that stat is flawed.

One of the problems with discussions (less so here but on many other blogs) is people arguing that Player A is better then Player B, by using one or two stats to make their case. Obviously, you must look at many stats, and give certain weights to each, to try and come up with a valid evaluation.

Actually, I think it would be fun to try and put that together, and would lead to an interesting discussion of which stats carry the most weight, and what balance of stats best describes the ‘ultimate’ player.

OPS+? ERA+? RCAA? etc.

Of course there can never be a single stat that determines how deserving a player is for the HOF, though new metrics are constantly being developed that help us evaluate how valuable a player is–and for how long. Moreover, I would not want the HOF reduced to a single formula, essentially an automatic algorithm.

That being said, historical predictors like the ones James has developed do serve a valuable purpose in highlighting biases in the voting process. Our job now as serious fans and sports writers is to call attention to how traditional HOF-marker stats overvalue or undervalue certain players.

Just from this year, Rickey is arguable one of the best players all-time–certainly one of the top few LF ever–yet his HOF monitor score is relatively low. Why? Because OBP and walks and runs are not as “valuable” in the minds of the voters as HR and RBI and a .300 BA.

“Hall of Fame Monitor

This is another Jamesian creation. It attempts to assess how likely (not how deserving) an active player is to make the Hall of Fame.”

As such, certain types of players and certain positions continue to be over/underrepresented.

I have mixed feelings about Rickey as a Yankee. At his best, he was the most dynamic leadoff man they’ve ever had. He also hit with terrific power for the Yankees, reaching the 20-home run plateau on two or three occasions. Remarkably, he hit 297 home runs for his career, which coupled with his walks and stolen bases, made him the ultimate ignitor.

Then there was the 1989 season. Henderson did not like playing for Dallas Green and basically tanked the first half of the season. Not only did his offensive numbers suffer, but he ran the bases half-heartedly at times and running after balls lazily in left field. It was blatant; I can remember him on several occasions just jogging on base hits toward left field. With free agency impending, the Yankees didn’t want to risk losing him for nothing, so they settled for a package that was below market value (Polonia, Cadaret, Plunk).

Things might have been different if Billy Martin had lived and had come back to manage Henderson. Rickey was at his best playing for Billy.

FWIW:
Raines:
Black Ink: Batting – 20 (105) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting – 114 (178) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting – 46.6 (93) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting – 89.5 (178) (Likely HOFer > 100)

Rice
Black Ink: Batting – 33 (49) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting – 176 (57) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting – 43.0 (114) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting – 144.5 (89) (Likely HOFer > 100)

Donnie Baseball
Black Ink: Batting – 23 (85) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting – 111 (187) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting – 34.2 (201) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting – 133.5 (98) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

Jeter (just for fun)
Black Ink: Batting – 6 (331) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting – 116 (172) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting – 53.9 (55) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting – 238.0 (25) (Likely HOFer > 100)

238!!!!!!

In looking at the defintions:
… SS’s and C’s get extra points, which is weird, because they are compared to other SS’s and C’s.
… Points are also given for PS appearances… which is nuts.
…. Defensive does not get a lot of weight, and again, is heavily slanted to SS’s and C’s. First basemen get VERY little credit. So if Gehrig single-handedly got his team into the PS 10 years in a row, his SS and C will benefit more then him.

I understand the intent of these numbers, but they need work.
“5 points if they were the regular SS or C on a League Championship (but not WS) team, 3 points for 2B or CF, 1 for 3B. I don’t have the OF distribution, so I give 1 points for OF.
2 points if they were the regular SS or C on a Division Championship team (but not WS or LCS), 1 points for 2B, CF, or 3B. I don’t have the OF distribution, so I give 1 points for OF”

I mean, how many points does Jeter get on those 2 rules?
P.S. Raines misses in every category by 10-25%

What hath Fire Joe Morgan wrought?

Congratulations to the “Man of Steal”!