Too frequently WAR stumps you. Occasionally this makes you reconsider a player in a positive light, but more often it's negative. Jimmy Rollins looks great for the Hall of Fame on the surface: 400 stolen bases, 200 home runs and 100 triples are an unusual combination…and he’s the only guy in that club. He won four Gold Gloves at shortstop and spent almost his entire career at the position; his career includes an MVP and leading a team to the World Series. Clearly one of the best players of all time, right?
Well, WAR thinks otherwise. Rollins ranks 36th all time in career value for shortstops, well behind almost every Hall of Famer, and many non-Hall of Famers. At his peak WAR thinks he was overvalued, below Chase Utley for sure but also below others like Cole Hamels. Understanding why WAR undervalues Rollins is at the heart of his Hall of Fame case. To help make sense of it I’m flipping the questions around and starting with the third question instead of the first.
Was Jimmy Rollins an Inalienable Part of Baseball History?
Yes, Rollins won an MVP award and was a key player for the great 2007-11 Phillies teams which won two pennants and a World Series ring. It would be unfair to call Rollins the quintessential player as he shared that distinction with Ryan Howard and Chase Utley, but he’s darned close.
Did Jimmy have Staying Power?
Yes. Rollins accumulated the 13th most plate appearances among shortstops all time, and many of the players ahead of him moved off position. Ernie Banks, Cal Ripken, Alex Rodriguez, Omar Vizquel and Robin Yount all spent significant time at other positions. As a result: he managed to keep playing into his late 30s, accumulated nearly 2,500 hits, and even won a Gold Glove in a bounceback season at 33. I would argue Rollins’ staying power is the key part of his Hall of Fame case: he was a very good shortstop for a long time, a rare feat in the game of baseball.
Was Jimmy Rollins Ever Great?
Maybe for a season or two? Rollins’ MVP season was a great year, it was by far his best offensive season leading the National League in triples with 20, stealing 40 bases, playing all 162 games while also leading the NL in runs scored. He won a Gold Glove at shortstop, although I am not entirely sure he was the best shortstop in the NL that year. Troy Tulowitzki won the Gold Glove while leading the NL in putouts and assists. Omar Vizquel posted one of his best defensive seasons for the Giants, and while Jimmy Rollins did finish third in putouts and second in assists: a lot of that was playing time. He did not finish in the top 10 in range factor. For the 2007 season: Rollins posted a 119 OPS+ the best of his career.
The problem with Rollins is…that’s basically the only year he was an above average offensive player. Almost every other year he was either average or below average. Personally, I am open to a player being great on the strength of their defense, but you need to be a really good defensive player to do it. Rollins did win 4 Gold Gloves in his career (in 2007, ‘08, ‘09 and ‘12) but I am not convinced he deserved any of those awards. He never led the league in range factor, or came particularly close, nor did he ever lead the league in assists or putouts. These are just the basic fielding counting statistics, but they’re at least partially telling; the best fielders should be getting to more balls and making more plays. Rollins rarely did that.
So if Rollins was not a great hitter, and his defense (while certainly good) is at least contestable: what else is there? Rollins was a great baserunner, leading the league in stolen bases in 2001 with 46, stealing 40 bases three other times and 30 bases six other times, for a career total of 470. That’s a lot, and Rollins was certainly one of the best baserunners of his generation. In fact, WAR thinks it's Rollins’ best attribute. If you look at how Baseball-Reference values each aspect of his game its telling:
+77 runs from baserunning and double play avoidance
+43 runs from defense (and another 120 for playing shortstop
-43 runs from hitting
The question then becomes: is this enough to rank Rollins as among the best players in baseball? WAR would argue no: Rollins only ranked even among the top 10 for position players twice, and never higher than 6th. He only twice ranked among the top 5 in defensive WAR either. If we compare this to defense first shortstops this is quite low.
There are 5 shortstops in the Hall of Fame with a below average OPS+ here’s the number of times each either led the league in dWAR or finished in the top 5:
That’s…not a good comparison for Rollins. For a player who’s calling card is defense and baserunning: Rollins really does not have a strong handle on the defense part. Furthermore Rollins was not as good a baserunner as some of these players either. Luis Aparicio, in particular, stands out to me as he led the league in steals 9 times.
Which leads me to the question: is there something the numbers are missing? The answer I keep coming back to is no. I don’t think the offensive numbers are inaccurate: Rollins never hit .300 in his career, never posted even a .350 on-base percentage and only once posted a .500 slugging percentage. Overall: Rollins earned his below average career OPS+ of 95; he was not a Hall of Fame hitter, even at shortstop. He must overcome this deficiency elsewhere, and he simply did not do it. Rollins was a good defender and a good baserunner, but not good enough to overcome his deficiencies.
Among his direct contemporaries I think both Omar Vizquel and Alex Rodriguez were better defenders than Rollins. Derek Jeter was arguably a better baserunner. There certainly were better hitters too: Troy Tulowitzki was a better hitter & Miguel Tejada was a better hitter. Is it possible that Rollins was the best player with these combined skills? Here are contemporary shortstops by WAR:
As we can see: Jeter is the class of this generation of shortstops by far, and obviously he’s in the Hall of Fame. I do think Rollins was better than Tejada, and for his career better than Tulowitzki (who only played 150 games twice in his career). Is it possible WAR underrated Rollins a bit? Sure, I’d be willing to say that Rollins was more than a whisker ahead of his competition, but I don’t see data to suggest anything more than that.
Conclusion
It’s no fun tearing a player down: I would much prefer explaining why someone’s favorite player deserves the honor of entering the Hall of Fame. Jimmy Rollins was a great player, one of the best shortstops of all time: you cannot believe in statistics which suggest he’s in the top 30-40 shortstops ever and conclude otherwise. But the reason why Cooperstown feels special is because of how hard it’s to get in. Not just anyone can get into the Hall of Fame.
Which is not to say Rollins was just anyone. But, there are many players I think are better than him who either aren’t in the Hall of Fame for various reasons (Nomar Garciaparra) or are active and not eligible yet (Francisco Lindor). Typically being the second best player at your position, in your era, would be enough to earn induction (assuming you exclude PED users). But the gap between Rollins and Jeter is quite wide, and the gap between Rollins and the various shortstops below him is not. It’s difficult for me to justify supporting Jimmy Rollins in these circumstances.
That being said, I think Rollins could easily earn induction. Probably not via the BBWAA: but certainly via a future Veteran’s Committee. He has a lot of hits (a statistic which correlates to recent surprising candidates like Harold Baines and Dave Parker) and he won an MVP Award for a significant team. Rollins is a big part of baseball, and that is something worth honoring.
-Benjamin, J