Not intending personal offense to correspondents or to Jim Gilliam's memory, but this WAR-wielding is exceedingly dumb. Many of us still above ground saw him play, and he was no one's idea of a Hall of Fame player.
-
-
Replying to @thorn_john @grahamdude and
I've stated I don't quite think he's a Hall of Famer, but I think what the WAR wielding helps with is trying to put some objective measure on what Gilliam lost at the beginning of his career because of the color of his skin. I don't think he's quite there, though.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballtwit @thorn_john and
Right. I don’t think he’s a Hall of Famer either, but he was an excellent player for many years, robbed of part of his career, and underappreciated by raw WAR evaluation.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MarkArmour04 @baseballtwit and
Like Lloyd Waner, Gilliam was a below-average player for a very long time. The length of his service boosts his WAR total (and maybe HOF standing) but not his OPS+ or Linear Weights. This is of course an enduring point of difference between advocates of WAR and other measures.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @thorn_john @MarkArmour04 and
Just catching up on all of this. I'm with Adam. Even if someone doesn't seem to meet the eye test, it seems perfectly reasonable to at least look at why there might be a discrepancy with WAR or other metrics.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @grahamdude @MarkArmour04 and
Gilliam does not look good as a HOF candidate *except* by WAR and its underlying inflator, games played. I don't mean to hammer on him; it is WAR and WAR alone that burnishes his would-be plaque.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @thorn_john @MarkArmour04 and
On one hand, I won't argue WAR elevates his case. It seems to do this for many older candidates. Would we care about Bill Dahlen if he didn't have 75.2 WAR? That said, depending on how much you're willing to credit Gilliam's 1946-52 seasons, he jumps up a lot closer to 3K hits.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @grahamdude @MarkArmour04 and
I cared about Bill Dahlen's HOF case before sabermetrics came around. He is one of four among the dozen depicted on this 1985 TNP cover who are still not in the Hall (Dick Allen, Dickey Pearce, Bob Johnson, Dahlen). I expect Dick Allen will get in with the next round.pic.twitter.com/RdMsb65Fa3
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @thorn_john @grahamdude and
Jim Gilliam also checks a lot of the traditional pre-stathead boxes. Infielder for 7 pennant winners & 4 World Champs playing in a big market. Smart guy, respected in the game, baseball lifer who worked in uniform until the day he died. I'm a skeptic, but his case isn't crazy.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @baseballcrank @grahamdude and
It isn't crazy to think that playing for a winning team in a big market will draw attention to his HOF case. But this is how we got Freddie Lindstrom, George Kelly, et al.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
True. Just saying, this is not just a WAR thing. I think you only put in Gilliam if you're leaning pretty hard on the slow fall of the color line delaying the start of his career.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.