Barry Larkin and Win Shares

Because I know you can't get enough of my spittle-flecked invective about this.

The arguments against Andre Dawson are largely from sabremetrically inclined folks--that is, people who tend to think that on-base percentage is a better measure of production than batting average or runs batted in, and that there are more accurate statistical ways to represent value than counting stats like hits, errors and ERA. Folks who dislike 'nerds' who 'take the joy out of the game' with their calculators are in effect saying that position players who don't help the team by striking the ball are not actually contributing. They're 'clogging the bases' with walks or making 'unproductive outs' with strikeouts instead of sacrifice bunts.

This is, of course, ludicrous. The point of the game is to score, and the only way to score is get on base. Walks get you on base. Sacrifice bunts do not. Sacrifice bunts are not an attempt to get on base. Strikeouts are--a failed attempt, true, but an attempt. Besides, does a light-hitting center fielder who covers the gaps and doesn't let a ball get past him really not contribute to the team?

Which is a long way to go to get to Win Shares. Basically, Win Shares considers a player's contributions on offense and defense in the context of his team performance, adjusted for several variables like the difference between hitting in Coors Field and Dodger Stadium. Its main purpose is to distill a player in context and compare him to any other player, regardless of position. (Many sabremetric folks have some issues with Win Shares, but the basic idea is widely accepted.)

The great thing about Win Shares is that its use highlights how truly great the best players were. Only rarely does it point to players who were underrated in their time, as Joe Posnanski discovered with Ken Singleton. But Posnanski also uses Win Shares to demonstrate how truly dominant Joe Morgan, Mike Schmidt, Barry Bonds and Albert Pujols were/are in their respective times. No 'nerd' hater could disagree with a claim that those four players are among baseball's all-time elite.

So.

Via Cardinal Nation, of the folks on this year's Hall of Fame ballot, Barry Larkin has more Win Shares than only two: Tim Raines (who should get in but probably won't) and Robert Alomar (who will get in next year, and would have this year if he hadn't spit on that umpire). Furthermore:

-Barry Larkin (347) has more Win Shares than Andre Dawson (340).
-Hell, Larkin has more Win Shares than Mark McGwire (342).
-He has nearly 10% more than Alan Trammell (318), even more than that over sabremetrician-favorite Edgar Martinez (305) and a yawning gap over Kirby Puckett (281).
-He has more Win Shares than eight of the last 15 inductees to the Hall of Fame, including the only middle infielders, Ozzie Smith (325) and Ryne Sandberg (346, excluding Ripken because of the years he played third base).

The only legitimate knock on Larkin is that he was oft-injured. That's it. In spite of that he still managed to generate superior performance relative to his peers over five-year stretches spanning 16 seasons. His counting stats aren't mind-boggling, which hurts him with folks like Howard Bryant. But that also means that his fielding must have been beyond exceptional to amass that many Win Shares.

Voting for Dawson is largely a function of ignoring his more complex stats (like OBP) and wallowing in his counting stats (HR, mainly) and intangibles: MVP, Gold Glove, 'fear' and 'intensity.' Not voting for Larkin is ignoring his positive intangibles (same team for 19 seasons, leader, World Series ring, MVP, Gold Gloves that would have gone to Ozzie Smith) AND his complex stats (OPS+, Win Shares) while focusing on his single negative intangible (injury) and his counting stats (which are still better than peers and predecessors at his position).

The more I dig into this the more incredulous I am at the BBWAA. I thought Larkin had a borderline case to make the Hall of Fame, but I am now convinced that this is an absolute no-brainer. Unfortunately for Larkin, 48.4% of baseball writers have exactly that: no brains.