Baseball Is More Than Stats

by Dusty Writes

July 2026

***

Many players throughout history have been incredibly underrated because they made significant contributions to their teams which cannot be quantified. Here are some of many examples:

Sparky Lyle had an excellent career as a relief pitcher for the Yankees. His stats, from Baseball Reference tell us he led the league in saves twice, won a Cy Young Award, won 2 World Series and was fantastic in the postseason, winning 3 games, losing none with a save and a 1.69 ERA.  He has a career 22.8 WAR. 

No statistic whatsoever can come anywhere close to giving credit to Lyle for his contributions to his team. Stats only tell us what an individual accomplished, but it doesn't include something very important: Stats don't tell us how a player makes another player play at a higher level.

Ron Guidry has said on many occasions how Lyle taught him how to throw a great slider. Guidry, who had an excellent career said he never would have had the career he had if Lyle didn't show him how to throw that pitch. Lyle's contributions to the Yankees go far beyond his 22.2 career WAR. Lyle was very in instrumental in Guidry's career. 

The problem with intangibles (things that cannot be quantified) is that players, like Lyle do not receive any statistical credit for Guidry's career. It is impossible to assign a statistical number or "intangible credit" to Lyle's career. The main priority for any team should be winning, rather than an individual's stats. 

Whether it is voting for the Hall of Fame, a team Hall of Fame, plaque, retired number, etc., the individual accomplishments of the player in addition to the intangibles he provided should both be used in determining a player's career. Unfortunately, the Hall of Fame and other awards basically only focus on what the individual accomplished rather than the entire contribution that player made to the team, which includes the intangibles.

Ron Washington is another good example of a player who doesn't get enough credit. He didn't have much of a playing career, and although he won two straight pennants, and was a strike away twice, from winning a World Series, his managerial career does not rank anywhere near Hall of Fame managers. But Washington's greatest contributions are his contributions as an infielder coach. He is widely acknowledged as one of the best infield coaches in MLB.  Coaches ae very underrated, as player and managers get the vast majority of the credit, while coaches' contributions are virtually ignored in many instances. Coaches are not the glamour, high profile positions. 

Washington's career baseball stats are not impressive at all. His managerial career had some nice accomplishments that we can quantify. But ironically, his greatest attribute, teaching fundamentals to infielders cannot be quantified, and therefore his contributions mostly fly under the radar. This is the weakness and limitations of stats like WAR and other stats. They don't have the ability to statistically quantify intangibles, and therefore cannot assign "credit" for Washington's accomplishments.

Washington was instrumental in teaching defensive skills to Eric Chavez, while with the A's. Chavez won 6 Gold Gloves and he dedicated or gave his first Gold Glove to Washington, with a note telling Washington he never would have been a Gold Glove third baseman without Washington's expertise. Washington also gets credit for playing a big part in Miguel Tejada's development. Tejada won an MVP.

Analysts on MLB network and other articles mentioned how Washington, as the Braves coach, was instrumental in the Braves winning the World Series. 

Here is an example of how underrated Washington and other coaches are: Early in the season, an article mentioned the great defensive improvement by second baseman, Luis Arraez. I mentioned that in an SSTN article. The fans' comments on Arraez's improvements were interesting. Some fans, commenting on the article said it was too early in the season as they were not convinced Arraez would continue to play well defensively the entire season. Some fans said perhaps he was playing for a new contract next season and wanted to focus more on defense to get a better contract. I don't remember any fans giving new Giants defensive infield coach, Ron Washington, any credit whatsoever, for Arraez's defensive improvement.  

Who knows how long Arraez will continue to play excellent defense? Will his excellent defense last the entire season, next season, his entire career? Who knows? Maybe he will fall back into bad defensive habits and techniques. The point is, however, Washington has shown, again, he is a very talented defensive infielder coach. I am not convinced Arraez would be this good a defensive second baseman with another coach besides Washington. Coaches can be much more important than many give credit for.

Cal Ripken Sr. is in the Baltimore Orioles Hall of Fame. Many fans may say Ripken Sr. in the Orioles Hall of Fame is ridiculous. These fans will point out he never played MLB and he managed only 169 games with a losing record. How can they put him in the Orioles Hall of Fame?  He accomplished a great deal and Ripken Sr. is an excellent addition to the Orioles Hall of Fame. He provided a tremendous contribution that in no way possible can be quantified by WAR. This is yet another example of stats. Stats give us a limited understanding of a player's contribution. It tells us only what a player accomplished individually, as a player or manager. 

Ripken Sr. however, was with the Orioles organization for 36 years in a variety of jobs (scout, player. manager, coach). Hall of Fame manager, Jim Leyland said this about Ripken Sr., "To this day, I believe he was one of the best fundamental teachers I have ever been around."

When Baltimore was a dominant team from 1966-1983, winning 3 world championships, 6 pennants, and additional divisional titles, Ripken Sr. played a big part in many of those championships. As minor league manager, he played a big part in developing Jim Palmer, Eddie Murray, Rich Dauer and others. 

Sam Perlozzo said about Ripken Sr., "... You learned from him no matter how long you had been in the game." Ripken Sr. still influences in a positive way the current Orioles. His sons, Cal and Billy (baseball author and baseball tv analyst), run baseball schools teaching fundamentals. Cal Jr., disgusted with the lack of fundamentals on this current Orioles team, has now been much more involved with teaching fundamentals to the Orioles minor leagues.

If it was suggested that Ripken Sr. go into the Baseball Hall of Fame, many fans would sarcastically say his election was ridiculous, they would point out his managerial career was a farce and he never played at the MLB level. They would then say something such as,"Let's put everyone who ever played MLB, even if it was only one game in the Hall of Fame. Now we are putting in coaches. The Hall of Fame is absurd."

But, isn't it about time coaches do get elected into the Hall of Fame? Didn't Ripken Sr. contribute much more to the Orioles success over the years than many all-star players?  Players' contributions can be quantified so some get into the Hall of Fame. Coaches, no matter how many players improved under their guidance, don't get into the Hall of Fame because their contributions cannot be quantified. What makes so many fans and media so certain and so confident that intangibles and unquantifiable contributions are not as equal or not as valuable than quantifiable stats?

If we analyze the careers of Washington and Ripken Sr. and go beyond their managerial careers, we find both players were fantastic coaches. Billy Martin, as I mentioned in my last article, like Washington and Ripken Sr. may have been a better fundamental coach, scout and talent evaluator than as manager, even though he gets high praise as manager from legends such as Bobby Cox, Tony LaRussa, Buck Showalter and others. Martin's coaching career and teaching fundamentals doesn't show up in WAR and other individual stats, but coaching is incredibly important. Coaches don't get statistical credit for their accomplishments and often fly under the radar and many fans don't even know who many of these coaches are.

We know stats are essential and make sports much more interesting and provide a valuable service. But no stat is the end all be all. If only quantifiable stats are used, this would be a very poor way to evaluate a player's total contribution to his team.

Another example: if we go by the vast majority of articles, books and polls, the two best catchers in history that are mentioned are Johnny Bench and Yogi Berra. Sometimes Berra is ranked as the best in history, but usually Bench is ranked first. 

If we use the stat WAR, Bench is Number 1 (Baseball Reference) with a career 75.1 Berra with 59.5 is ranked 6th.   Bill Dickey, is ranked 7th all-time in WAR with 56.2.  With the exception of Bob Feller, who said Dickey was the best catcher of all-time, Dickey is never mentioned as the best catcher in history. Feller said if he had Dickey as his catcher while Feller in his prime, Feller would have won 35 games a season. While Feller exaggerates, we get his point. That's how great Dickey was. 

If we go by WAR, Dickey couldn't be the best catcher of all-time. But what if we talk about which catcher made the greatest contribution to his team? In this instance, Dickey would far surpass Bench as which contributed most to his team. Yogi Berra and Elston Howard both said they learned just about everything about baseball from Bill Dickey. Both players said they wouldn't have had anywhere near the careers they had if it wasn't for Dickey's expert teaching.

Elston Howard said about Bill Dickey, "Without Bill, I'm nobody. Nobody at all. He made me a catcher."  Yogi Berra said about Bill Dickey, "I always say I owe everything I did in baseball to Bill Dickey."

Bill Dickey's amazing contributions extended well beyond his Hall of Fame playing career. Almost 20 years after he retired as a player, Dickey's students (Berra and Howard) would go on to win four MVP and were both instrumental players in the greatest dynasty in baseball history.

Bench may very well be a better catcher than Dickey. Bench may very well be the greatest catcher of all-time.  Bench did not mentor two fantastic catchers after he retired like Dickey did. Dickey's contributions to the Yankees far exceed Bench's contributions to the Reds. 

Pete Rose had a career WAR of 79.6 but he was much better than a 79.6 player. WAR doesn't include the intangibles. Let's say that Rose hustles to break up a double play that would end the inning with the Reds scoring no runs. His slide into second base forces the infielder to hurry his throw and as a result makes a poor throw to first base The runner is safe at first on what should have been a double play to end the inning. The next Reds batter hits a two-run homer. Rose doesn't get any statistical credit for the slide that kept the inning going. Nowhere in the statistics indicates that Rose played a big part in those two runs being scored. This is another example of the limitations of stats. Stats can be fantastic, but they also can be misleading and do not include all contributions.

When Rose moved to 3rd base from the outfield to make room for left fielder George Foster, that was the missing piece for the Reds' two straight world championships. Let's say for example, Rose was unable to play an adequate third base, or maybe he was not willing to switch positions. If Rose stayed in left field, there may not have been a position open for Foster to play. Rose's fantastic versatility, he played 6 different positions in his career, allowed Foster to move into left field. Foster won the 1977 MVP and had 3 straight seasons leading the league in rbis and 2 straight seasons leading the league in homers.

Rose gets no statistical credit for Foster's stats, but we know his switching to 3rd base provided Cincinnati with a much greater contribution than Rose's 210 hits and .317 batting average, league leading 112 runs scored and league leading 47 doubles in 1975.

As great as his career stats were, Rose was even much better than his stats. His incredible durability, very rarely missing any games throughout most of his career, his hustle, his ability to play well in the clutch, and his ability to play 6 different positions and amazingly he was an all-star at 5 different positions. These intangibles provided his teams with much more than the stats give him credit for.

Mike Schmidt said when the Phillies acquired Rose that Rose taught them how to win. The Phillies had lost 3 straight NLCS series, but in 1980, with Rose playing for the Phillies, the Phillies finally won a world championship. 

Another intangible: A team is playing a big series down the stretch. The team's bullpen is exhausted for this big series and the bullpen desperately needs a day off. Let's say the game is on a Monday. The pitcher pitches a complete game victory, and in addition to the win, provided the bullpen with a much needed rest. The next day, the rested bullpen pitches 4 scoreless inning as the starter struggled. The team wins again. Had the pitcher on Monday not pitched a complete game, the tired bullpen would have had to come in to pitch on Monday, and then, when the bullpen was needed the next game, may not have been at their best due to no days off.

A pitcher who goes deep in a game on a Monday, for example, has a positive effect on the game the next day, even though the starting pitcher doesn't even pitch on Tuesday. Once again, there are no statistics that give credit to Monday's starting pitcher for playing a key role in Tuesday's win.

Stats are fantastic and are essential to baseball, baseball debates, and conversations. Stats can only tell us so much. They can't tell us everything. Using only stats is a poor way to evaluate a player, manager or coach's career. Stats combined with intangibles are a much better way to evaluate a player's career than just using stats alone