GREAT, Part II
Posted: July 22nd, 2008 | Filed under: Baseball | 92 Comments »
OK, so a few brilliant readers were wondering if we might offer a compilation of GREAT seasons that takes the players’ position into account. Well, sure, why not? Anything for my brilliant readers. In order to it quickly, I simply looked up the Top 500 seasons of “Runs Created Above Position,” (it came out to 522 with ties). I threw the names into an excel file (it turned out that 51 RCAP was the cutoff), and I sorted them out.
Here then, for your perusal, are all 67 players who had three or more GREAT seasons.
14 GREAT seasons
Babe Ruth
Barry Bonds
Everybody said that this would happen, but now you can actually see it happening: It seems that people really are forgetting just how great Barry Bonds was before his head swelled. Maybe that’s what they call justice in literary novels, but still, in the interest of accuracy, it’s worth pointing out that there probably was not a player, perhaps other than Ruth, who could match the all-around brilliance of Barry Bonds in 1992 and 1993, years before even his harshest critic suggests he used steroids or anything else.
Those two years, his OPS+ were 205 and 204 PLUS he stole 68 bases and led the league power/speed numbers, PLUS he won two Gold Gloves PLUS he had palpable and dramatic effect on the two teams. Pittsburgh won 96 games with him, and won only 75 the next year without him. San Francisco won 72 games the year before he arrived, then Barry did arrive and the Giants won 103. Again, maybe it’s just right considering what followed, but Skinny Barry (like Skinny Elvis, in some ways) may go down as the most underrated player ever to walk this earth.
12 GREAT seasons
Honus Wagner
My favorite Wagner quote: “I have never been sick. I don’t even know what it means to be sick. I hear other players say they have a cold. I just don’t know what it would feel like to have a cold. I never had one.”
11 GREAT seasons
Ted Williams
Ty Cobb
Seeing those two names together reminds me of the story Williams used to tell about Cobb. Apparently it would tick off Cobb to no end when he saw Williams pull balls smack into the Boudreau Shift. I guess Cobb, at some point, explained to the Kid how he could hit balls to left field, bang a single or double every time up. He demonstrated with a bat. And Williams, who would tell everyone that he knew more about hitting then any guy who ever bleeping walked on this earth, said he no idea what the bleep Cobb was talking about.
10 GREAT seasons
Lou Gehrig
Mickey Mantle
Stan Musial
So, here’s the thing about baseball stories … they rarely turn out to be exactly the way you hear them. They rarely turn out to be ANYTHING like the way you hear them. This is at the core of Rob Neyer’s fun book where he looks at a bunch of different baseball stories and, for the most part, debunks them. These stories almost always have a core of truth in them, but the details tend to be exaggerated for effect.
A few months ago when I was doing preliminary research for a possible Stan Musial book (that, who knows, I may still write someday). I continuously ran across the story that I used in a post the other day: The story is of Muslal having a game-winning grand slam called back because a ball rolled off the field just before pitch. Then, without complaint, he stepped back into the box and hit a game-winning triple against the Dodgers. The story had the exaggerations you expect in a baseball story (it was against the Dodgers, it was the ninth inning, the bases were loaded, and so on), but I saw it in so many places — four at least — and it was told with such deep and vivid detail in a Musial biography written in the 1950s (complete with quotes and specifics) that I figured it had to be MOSTLY true, certainly the spirit of it had to be true.
Well … OK. I threw it into my blog post. Then a few people said they couldn’t find the game, couldn’t find the situation, and there were a couple of details that did not fit. So I did a little bit of my own research. And I came across this, from a newspaper column in 1961 about Musial …
“National League umpire Tom Gorman, a frequent visitor to these pars, tells a story typical of the character displayed by Stan the Man. The incident happened a few seasons back, when the Cardinals and Dodgers were playing in St. Louis, before a packed stadium.
“With St. Louis trailing late in the game by two runs, Stan Musial came to bat with two men on base. As the pitcher started his delivery, a ball rolled from the bullpen to the playing field, and umpire Lee Ballanfant called time. Too late to stop the pitcher, Musial clouted the ball for what looked like a three-run homer, and there were moments of bedlam before the crowd became quiet enough to learn the homer had been nullified when Ballanfant called time. That set off a near riot.
“Through all the uproar, Musial waited until things calmed down, stepped into the batters box when order was restored, and proceeded to wallop the ball off the scoreboard for a double. The two Cardinals on base scored, and Musial made it home on a throwing error.”
Oh oh. As you can see, the story is quite different in that version. Here, it was a double not a triple. It was “late innings” not the ninth inning. And Musial himself actually scored the go-ahead run on a throwing error. So the story is still good, but not quite as good. And then, I did a little poking around: Even this newer version did not seem to happen … or at least not with all those details. Based on what I can tell from scouring the incredible Retrosheet, Lee Ballanfant and Tom Gorman only worked together as umpires one year. That was 1952, which is good — that actually fits the way the story was written in its most specific form. Trouble is, from what I can tell, the pair did not umpire a Dodgers-Cardinals game in St. Louis in ‘52.
So, what the heck happened? Well, as you might have guessed … I became obsessed by this. Yeah, I have a little of that personality. And, hey, I found it. Believe me, it wasn’t easy, because the details for this Musial story that has been written countless times have been so mashed up through the years, that the actual story is only barely recognizable. It wasn’t 1952. It wasn’t against the Dodgers. There was no homer. And, most confusing of all, Tom Gorman was not there. This thing turned out to be CSI: Musial. Still, I did find it, and the true story is wonderful in its own way, and it still shows the class and dignity of Stan Musial. So here goes … and I have since updated THIS version of the story to the top of my Musial post.
There was this game, early in ‘54, that year the Edward Murrow went after Joe McCarthy and Roger Bannister ran a mile in four minutes, and Musial’s Cardinals trailed the Chicago Cubs 3-0 in the seventh inning. Cubs lefty pitcher Paul Minner was baffling the Cardinals — he had allowed just two singles, had faced one over the minimum. Then he found himself facing Musial with Wally Moon was on first base and two outs. Musial crushed a ball to deep right field, a double. Moon ran all the around the bases to score. Musial cruised into second. The whole complexion of the game had changed. And it was only then that everyone seemed to notice the first base umpire, Lee Ballanfant, was holding up his arms. He had called Musial’s double a foul ball.
Nobody quite knew how to react. The ball, at least in the Cardinals view, had clearly been fair. It was not even an especially close call. And while the crowd cheered wildly (the game was in Chicago) the guys on the Cardinals bench went crazy. They rushed on the field, shortstop Solly Hemus first, manager Eddie Stanky right behind him, and both were thrown out by home plate umpire Augie Donatelli. Funny thing, Augie would play a big role in Musial’s life. Donatelli would be one of the umpires there less than a month later when Musial hit five homers in a doubleheader. Much later, he was behind the plate for Musial’s 3,000th hit. Anyway, he was here now, taking away a Musial hit, throwing out Hemus and Stanky, threatening pinch hitter Peanuts Lowrey with ejection, clearing the saloon like an old cowboy, even though, he certainly knew, the ball had been fair.
Musial, who in the confusion had not been told anything, walked over to Donatelli. Then, according to the stories, he calmly asked, “What happened Augie? It didn’t count, huh?” Augie nodded sadly and said the umpire had called the ball foul.
“Well,” Musial said, “there’s nothing you can do about it.”
Stan Musial stepped back promptly doubled to precisely the same spot in right field. This time, Ballanfant called the ball fair. The Cardinals scored six runs in the inning and won the game.
The story has been told many ways, by many people, most famously by umpire Tom Gorman. He seemed to remember that this had happened against Brooklyn, in ‘52, and he had been behind the plate. He obviously was confusing this story with another, but that’s really not hard to understand. Stan Musial had a lot of beautiful moments. There are a lot of stories.
9 GREAT seasons
Rogers Hornsby
Willie Mays
8 GREAT seasons
Alex Rodriguez
Mel Ott
Frank Thomas
It is when you compare A-Rod to the players at his positions that you realize just how extraordinary he has been. He has played 12 full seasons … and eight of those are among the best seasons a shortstop or third baseman has ever had.
7 GREAT seasons
Tris Speaker
Eddie Mathews
Eddie Collins
So far we are talking ONLY about Hall of Famers (or players like Bonds, A-Rod and Thomas who, based on their playing careers, should be surefire, no doubt, first ballot guys).
6 GREAT seasons
Nap Lajoie
Arky Vaughan
Jimmie Foxx
Joe Morgan
Mike Piazza
The excellent Chris Jaffe wrote a story the other day breaking down how the Baseball Writers have done voting for the Hall of Fame. He wrote that the BBWAA missing Arky Vaughan was “probably the biggest mistake the BBWAA ever made,” and I would concur. Second was letting me in.
5 GREAT seasons
Albert Pujols
Joe DiMaggio
Wade Boggs
Edgar Martinez
Charlie Gehringer
Manny Ramirez
Hank Aaron
Johnny Mize
Harry Heilmann
Pujols will have his sixth GREAT season this year and you figure by the end of his career he will make a case for being the greatest right handed hitter in baseball history … You look at this group and you have to say that every single person there is either in the Hall of Fame or will go … and then there’s Edgar. I have to say I’m really curious to see what happens when Edgar’s Hall of Fame time comes up. I have this bad, bad feeling that he will get Whitakered right off the ballot and everyone will wonder how the heck it happened.
4 GREAT seasons
Al Simmons
Joe Jackson
Jeff Bagwell
Jim Edmonds
Albert Belle
Todd Helton
Ken Griffey Jr.
Mike Schmidt
Now is when it starts getting really interesting. In some ways, I think maybe this answers my original question — how many GREAT years do you have to have to be considered great. Take a player with fIve or more GREAT seasons, and you could make a pretty strong case that he is an all-time great player, no matter what he did the rest of his career. But four GREAT seasons and now it really depends on the other years. Schmidt, of course, had plenty of other very good seasons and is in the Hall of Fame and widely considered outside of Kansas City to be the best third baseman ever. Junior had plenty of other very good seasons, and he will go first ballot*. Jeff Bagwell, I think, had the GREAT seasons and did enough other good things to get into the Hall. Jim Edmonds — and I was shocked, honestly, to see him pop up on this list — seemingly got hurt too much, but has a much better case than I would have thought at first blush.
*I have this weird feeling that Junior will come closer to being a unanimous choice than any position player ever. Why? Well, he will have the numbers — 600 homers, 10 Gold Gloves, maybe even 3,000 hits, and so on. He of course was widely viewed as the best player in the game (even though Bonds was better). He has charisma galore. And coming out of the steroid era, I think people will feel eager to vote for someone they feel strongly did not use PEDs. Plus as time goes on, I think people will forget that Griffey got hurt a lot and was really never a great player after his 30th birthday.
3 GREAT seasons
Mark McGwire
Hack Wilson
Larry Walker
George Brett
Rickey Henderson
Chipper Jones
Rod Carew
Jason Giambi
Gary Sheffield
Robin Yount
Ralph Kiner
Willie McCovey
Craig Biggio
Duke Snider
Jim Thome
Yaz
Jackie Robinson
Frank Robinson
Chuck Klein
Reggie Jackson
Brian Giles
Bill Dickey
Dick Allen
Home Run Baker
Roberto Alomar
Paul Waner
Barry Larkin
David Ortiz
Hank Greenberg
Whew. Lots to chew over on that list. Lots of Hall of Famers. Lots of borderline guys. And Brian Giles. Heck, I’m still exhausted after chasing down that Musial story. So we’ll open this one up to the brilliant readers.
Loading ...
First again? Well hell. I don’t think Edgar will get Whitakered, because of exactly what Joe is doing here. Whitaker was off the ballot before anyone knew he was on it. Edgar isn’t eligible for a while and people have been talking about it for some time already. Plus there are more voters like Joe now who will appreciate the type of hitter Martinez was.
The Williams/Cobbs story falls down to one thing: Williams’ stubbornness. Williams could easily have beaten the shift more often than not if he wanted to. He just didn’t friggin’ want to. He was such a SOB that he was going to BEAT your damn shift, no matter what the hell you did about it. You got him out this time? Fine. He’ll hit it OVER the shift the next time. To me, that always seemed to be his mindset. He wasn’t going to take what anyone gave him, he was going to take whatever he earned himself. His mother and his childhood seemed to drive him to act that way and, well, it worked.
One of the more interesting guys on that last list is Roberto Alomar. One of the best players I ever saw, but he was basically done at 33 after his last great season with the Indians. Then onto the Mets and obscurity. How did his game fall apart so fast?
I was at Yankee Stadium the first time he played there after his infamous spitting incident. The crowd started an “asshole” chant every time he got up that was deafening. Louder than I had ever heard any player razzed at the Stadium. And an off-season had passed by since the incident!
In the 1990’s, there were probably only a handful of players better than Robbie Alomar.
I would much rather see lou Whitaker restored to the voters than Edgar Martinez EVER have a shot at the Hall of Fame. Edgar should get into the Hall of Fame when he buys a ticket, and not until then. At least Rod Carew had a few years at the start of his career when he got his uniform dirty, before he turned into a slap-hitting First base joke, I don’t think the Mariners clubhouse guy ever had to break the bleach out when Edgar was concerned.
OK, having dug up the Musial story, you sort of have to write the book now, no?
I started reading your blog two weeks ago and I can’t seem to get enough. Every post seems to be incredibly insightful, thoroughly thought-out, and full of love for baseball.
I am too young to have seen players like Mays, Musial, or Mantle. My love for baseball began in the 90s, watching GREAT seasons from Griffey, A-Rod, and Martinez on a Mariners team full of incredible players that somehow managed to not win a World Series. They were without a doubt my favorite team in my Little League years even though I am a So Cal kid.
Anyways, my point is that Edgar Martinez should be a first-ballot HOFer no questions asked. He had GREAT seasons in a line-up that featured two other future first-ballot guys and thus was over-shadowed.
When there’s a dirty uniform hall of fame we can exclude Edgar but until then he belongs.
Does it ever occur to anyone that if that M’s team really had 3 all-time greats (or really 4 if you count Unit) how the hell did they not win anything? Perhaps they weren’t all that great…or perhaps their supporting cast just blew chow….
Ruth, Bonds, Wagner, Williams, Cobb.
In its own, baseball-centric way, that is very nice.
Thanks for this list, Joe.
So, who is hurt and who is helped?
Helped by more than one season, if you compare to position.
ARod (3.5 seasons)
Honus Wagner (3.5)
Micky Mantle (2.5)
Eddie Collins (2.5)
Nap Lojoie (2.5)
Mel Ott (2.0)
Eddie Matthews (2.0)
Joe Morgan (1.5)
Mike Piazza (1.5)
Helped by more than one season, NOT comparing to position
Ty Cobb (-3.5)
Frank Robinson (-2.5)
Mark McGuire (-2.0)
Hank Greenberg (-2.0)
Jimmy Fox (-2.0)
Tris Speaker (-2.0)
****************************
What about rankings? Who is hurt or helped by comparing to positional averages? Some notable jumps
Helped:
Micky Mantle: Goes from #13 to #7
Honus Wagner: From #9 to #3.
Bonds: From #3 to tied for #1
ARod: Goes from outside the top 20 to on the cusp of the top 10! Of course, he needs to nearly double his GREAT seasons to pass Bonds and Ruth
Hurt:
Cobb: From tied for #1 to #4. Essentially, the opposite of Bonds.
Tris Speaker: from #8 to #14
**********************
The top 23 of this list, and their two numbers, for your cut and paste pleasure.
Babe Ruth 14.5 14
Barry Bonds 13.0 14
Honus Wagner 8.5 12
Ty Cobb 14.5 11
Ted Williams 12.0 11
Lou Gehrig 11.0 10
Stan Musial 11.0 10
Mickey Mantle 7.5 10
Rogers Hornsby 9.5 9
Willie Mays 8.5 9
Frank Thomas 8.0 8
Mel Ott 6.0 8
Alex Rodriguez 4.5 8
Tris Speaker 9.0 7
Eddie Matthews 5.0 7
Eddie Collins 4.5 7
Nap Lojie 4.5 7
Jimmie Foxx 8.0 6
Joe Morgan 4.5 6
Mike Piazza 4.5 6
Hank Aaron 6.0 5
Joe DiMaggio 5.0 5
Frank Robinson 5.5 3
Hank Greenberg 5.0 3
Mark McGuire 5.0 3
Edgar was a great hitter, no question. But he is at best a borderline HOF candidate. He was half a ball player. It’s no coincidence his best years hitting came after he no longer had to play the field. Offense expectation is relative to position (it’s why we marvel at what ARod does with the bat…if ARod were strictly a DH, he would be “just” really really good, not one of the best to ever play the game) and thus as a DH Edgar needs to truly be *head and shoulders* above actual positional players. Edgar Martinez is Jim Thome, except at least Thome played nearly 1600 innings in the field. Martinez didn’t even play 600 innings. Borderline candidate at best.
“I started reading your blog two weeks ago and I can’t seem to get enough. Every post seems to be incredibly insightful, thoroughly thought-out, and full of love for baseball.”
I recommend reading the archives, which I just finished. Now I’m suffering from JoeBlog-withdrawal since I don’t have an entry to read every time I eat a sandwich or a bowl of cereal. Six-month old JoeBlog is still better than current-day entries elsewhere.
Great, Part III = pitchers, perhaps?
Did Derek Jeter even have one GREAT season? 1999 perhaps?
I think Martinez will get ignored in the Hall of Fame balloting because, as posters have mention, he was primarily a DH and he didn’t play on any championship teams. Defense and championship rings are two of the Hall’s biggest blindspots (along with batting average), and Martinez’s value is obscured by both critieria. It’s true that he didn’t have defensive value, but neither did Frank Thomas or Jim Thome; just because they played in the field doesn’t mean they were helping their teams.
As for championships, I don’t how Martinez gets all the blame when the Mariner’s had Griffey, Rodriguez, and Johnson who will all get plaques. It seems like Seattle’s front office just couldn’t find enough pretty good guys to stick around these all time greats.
Much better than “Part 1″…Poor Giles…I’m a Padres Fan…I think Petco Park really killed any HOF chance he had…Also, he spent his early days on the bench…
I am glad to see Jim Edmonds pop up so high on this list. I think he is one of the most under-appreciated superstars of this era; it is true that he has always has injury problems, but at his best he was every bit as good as Ken Griffey Jr ever was (though Griffey, of course, has had a better overall career.)
Since I pimped him yesterday, I want to register my surprise that Ripken still does not have 3 great seasons. I would have thought that his 1983 and 1984 would both handily make it (as I am sure his 1991 did); hell, he was about 40 runs above the average player those years, so he should have been at least 51 runs better than the average shortstop.
Ken Griffey Jr. didn’t use steroids?!?!?
What’s that based on? The fact that he is a nice guy and has “charisma” or because he has a smaller head than Barry Bonds?
Last I heard, he tested positive for steroids the same number of times as Bonds.
Hopefully, Omar Minaya will pull his head out of his ass in time to realize that you can’t win a championship with Marlon Anderson/Endy Chavez/Fernando Tatis as your starting corner outfielders and give Barry the World Series title to cement his status as the greatest player ever.
All of these arguments against Edgar lead me to one question that noone who is arguing against him has answered…does it really make a player more HOF worthy if his team left him out in the field despite the fact that he wasn’t any good out there? To say that at least Thome played in the field for a while isn’t a good argument because he wasn’t any good there and his teams probably would have been better with him NOT in the field. Playing in the field does not make a player a “whole” ball player if he’s hurting the team while out there and there are plenty of players who have been and should be HOFers who were not all that good in the field but were continually used there. Fielding is definitely a piece of the HOF puzzle, and Edgar’s poor fielding is a reason to move him down the list of all time greats that his hitting put him it, it shouldn’t bar him from the HOF just like it didn’t keep countless others who are in the HOF despite their lack of fielding prowess.
Everyone railing on Martinez’s defense should know he was a highly touted third baseman with solid defensive skills until he got hurt (torn hamstrings I believe). After that he took advantage of an AL rule which allowed him to not play hurt, the DH. As far as HoF chances, Martinez’s adjusted OPS+ (147) is ranked 42 in baseball history (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/OPSplus_career.shtml) which is higher than a number of HoF’ers.
Man, I’m really surprised at that Mike Schmidt number. The number implies that Alex Rodriguez could claim to be the greatest offensive third baseman ever by the end of this season.
Is there a bias in play because of the era Schmidt played in? Are RCAP based on both leagues or just the league a guy played in?
The NL of Schmidt’s era included Pete Rose, Bill Madlock, Tim Wallach and Ken Boyer at third. Some pretty good sticks there. Maybe Schmidt’s peak was just an unusually rich time for third basemen.
The other thing to bear in mind with Martinez–and with some other guys, like Wade Boggs and Brian Giles–is that he was kept in the minor leagues long past the point of being ready for the majors; Edgar was not a regular until he was 27 despite tearing up the minors. If you give him credit for those years, his career counting numbers look more HOF worthy.
“Is there a bias in play because of the era Schmidt played in? Are RCAP based on both leagues or just the league a guy played in?”
I wanted to inquire about this as well. Does RCAP benefit those who played in a high run environment? Is it even park adjusted?
Please note though that any metric that JoeBlog uses is going to have some issues.
No Sammy Sosa….NICE!!! Love it!
BTW – No more hating on Boston!
Joe, I have a funny twist to that Stan Musial story. My dad told it to me years ago, although I’m finding out today that he was wrong. He said that it was a HR that Musial hit that was called back, and he then hit a game-winning double. But the twist is that my Dad thought this was 1948 when Stan was 1 HR short of the triple crown.
So if you ask my Dad, he believes that an umpire robbed Stan of the triple crown. He loves that story. I don’t have the heart to tell him the truth.
I agree with the sentiment about Vaughan being the BBWAA’s most glaring error of omission, but I think it’s even clearer now that Mize was an awfully close second.
I’m a bit surprised that Hack Wilson shows up with three GREAT seasons. One, sure, but otherwise I thought he was a product of his era more than anything. I guess being a center fielder helped him in this latest list.
Finally, why the backhanded slap at Giles? So he’s not even borderline, in your view? What the hell? He can hardly be blamed for not getting a regular job in the big leagues until he was 28 years old. Your beloved Indians were stacked in the outfield and simply refused to trade the guy or find him regular plate appearances, despite four straight years in AA and AAA that looked like this:
.327/.407/.452
.313/.391/.479
.310/.390/.501
.314/.394/.594
Then, when they finally did flip him for the pitcher they always needed, they settled for nothing more in return than 150 or so innings from Ricardo Rincon spread over four seasons. It’s not Giles’ fault that his original organization flipped a guy with a 139 career OPS+ for a LOOGY. Cut him some slack.
Almost did a spit take reading Brian Giles on the list. The whole problem with this little series is that stats alone do not dictate who was a great player. Brian Giles was a fine player, but having him in the same list with George Brett, Rod Carew, and Yaz is laughable. I initially voted for Hank Aaron, simply because of what he had to go through every day when chasing Ruth. Besides, he’s still the all-time leader in RBI’s, and ultimately isn’t scoring runs what baseball is about?
Roy Hobbs had one great season. What were his final stats? He didn’t come up till mid-season though and also had a slump at one point during his Memo dating daze. Perhaps he hit .325 with 30 homers and 84 RBI?
What player got his uniform dirty the most often in baseball history? Does anyone know? I don’t, but it seems like something as important as that should be recorded somewhere. Maybe it was Dirty Al Gallagher?
Other appearance-based records: I’d say the player with the longest hair in the history of the major leagues would have to be Manny Ramirez. His braids are long, probably long enough to be illegal in the NFL now. Tallest hair in history would have to be Oscar Gamble at his afro peak.
As for Edgar Martinez, I don’t know if he’s a hall of famer or not. I know his DHing hurts his cause. If he played 40 years earlier, (or in the NL only) he would’ve been used as a fielder because of his bat, like a lot of other terrible fielders were before the DH. So if he had played then, he wouldn’t have had the DH issue. But on the other hand, if there was no DH when he played, his career would have been years shorter, which would have hurt his case.
I have no problem with DHs in the Hall, if they were great enough as hitters. Most pitchers in the Hall were terrible hitters, and thus only contributed in one half of the game, and actually hurt their team every time they came to the plate, but justifiably, no one cares about that. So if a hitter is great enough to make up for not helping his team in the field– and he’d have to be pretty darn great– then it should be looked at the same way.
I don’t much care about the Hall, though. I’d rather find some more Appearance Records. I wonder who had the longest beard ever in baseball history? The whitest shoes? (Got to be an A’s player from the 70’s, right?) The cleanest uniform? The highest waist measurement? (My guess: Rich Garces. But there are many other possibilities.)
“and ultimately isn’t scoring runs what baseball is about?”
No. Winning games, especially World Series ones.
Or beaver hunting. Take your pick.
Why is it laughable to say that peak-period Brian Giles was in the same class at peak-period Carew, Yaz, or Brett?
From 99-02 Giles averaged a 160 OPS+, which is better than what Carew or Brett ever averaged in four consecutive seasons.
Obviously Carew, Yaz, and Brett were very productive for much longer periods, but that’s not really what this exercise identifies.
“Or beaver hunting. Take your pick.”
Who do you think is baseball’s all-time leader in beaver hunting?
I’m going with Pete Rose. Four reasons:
1. Played more games than anybody else.
2. Played a huge number of games as a corner infielder, prime beaver-hunting positions
3. Played in an era of women coming to ballgames and wearing short skirts
4. Was kind of a sleazy guy. Does anybody think Pete Rose WOULDN’T try to look up the skirt of some girl seated in the front row?
” Plus as time goes on, I think people will forget that Griffey got hurt a lot and was really never a great player after his 30th birthday.”
I think this is an interesting statement by Joe, particularly in the context of all the Giles defending.
Including the season Ken Griffey, Jr. turned 31, he had 12 full seasons under his belt. He was obviously GREAT in 4 of those 12, and pretty darned good in the other 8. So, even if the injuries he’s had in Cincinnati had forced him out of the game a la Kirby Puckett, he’d be HOF worthy.
Including the season Brian Giles turned 31, he had 6 full seasons. His GREAT seasons end about that same time, with his best OPS+ coming in 2005. He hasn’t been injured, he’s just declined and been cursed by playing in PETCO and having his HR stats affected by that.
However, I think it is difficult to argue that Brian Giles could have played 12 seasons by the time he turned 31 or that he would have been as effective as Griffey.
In this analysis, is David Ortiz’s position DH or 1B? Seems like 3 “great” seasons compared to professional DHs (Hafner, Thome, and the like) is a lot. Shouldn’t DHs just be compared to the whole league, not just DHs, in any event, since presumably A-Rod, Pujols, etc., would put up the same or better numbers as a DH?
We know that “Macho Man” Paul Byrd and “Hulkster” Brian Roberts used PEDs, to name just two of the athletes you’d never ever have spotted with the naked eye. And yet we can just TELL that Ken Griffey Jr. didn’t. Never never never. Even though “Love Me, Hate Me” reported an alleged steroids conversation between Griffey and Bonds in 1998.
I think I made this point on a previous post but its worth making again. Edgar Martinez should go in the hall because at some point the HoF has to start recognising DHs. They are a bigger part of the game now then as a little as 15 years ago and should be counted as a position of themselves. Manny being Manny plays terrible defense and I’m sure if he was a pure DH everyone would still agree he is a sure fire first round HoFer.
When you are a great hitter people really don’t care about playing your position well it’s just a bonus that can make you an even greater player.
Funny, I was going to nominate Rose for dirtiest uniform. At least I always remember him standing up from another belly flop head-first dive brushing off his uni.
Mike Schmidt FP% at 3B – .955 (2,212 g)
Edgar Martinez FP% at 3B – .946 (563 g)
George Brett FP% at 3B – .951(1,692 g)
Frank Thomas FP% at 1B .991 (971 g)
Rafael Palmeiro FP% at 1B .994(2,139 g)
I don’t know… Looking at the above, Edgar wasn’t THAT far below these sure-fire locks with great reps as fielding 3B’s. (Yes, I know over 1000+ less games.)
I just threw in Frank and Raffa because I didn’t realize they were pretty darn good at first.
And yet as Sloth rejoiced above over no Sosa, I’m pleased to see no Raffa on this list. (Is that a real measure of artificial steroid impact?)
And I agree with Joe, Edgar’s going to get Whitakered.
“…However, I think it is difficult to argue that Brian Giles could have played 12 seasons by the time he turned 31 or that he would have been as effective as Griffey.”
And I don’t think anyone is arguing either of those things about Giles. But, due to factors beyond his control, it’s pretty indisputable that Giles lost a ton of regular playing time during what could/should have been prime seasons, and as such it’s sort of unfair to poo-poo his accomplishments compared to the other guys in the “3 GREAT Seasons” group. If the rest of that group is comprised of, in Joe’s words, “lots of Hall of Famers [and] lots of borderline guys”, then Giles should also be considered in the same light.
David Ortiz is 32 years old right now. His career line is .288/.383/.556 with 279 home runs. What would he have to do to become HOF worthy? Would he have to have put up Bonds-like late-career numbers (Bonds didn’t need them for the Hall, but Ortiz would)?
Um….Kyle…
Martinez played over 4800 Innings in the field (not a lot, but a lot more than 600). Thome played over 13,600 innings in the field.
I imagine you were talking about games played, not innings.
So basically, Edgar played a little over 3 full years in the field, Thome over 9 full seasons….a little different when you look at it that way.
I followed the Ms when Edgar first came up (looking it up, I wonder why he was so old?) He was a fine fielder–no one complained about him at all. Then he got hurt and couldn’t move all that well. In a pre-DH world he would have probably moved to first or left, but it’s hardly his fault that the AL allows a fella to only bat. And I’ve sure read plenty of other guys say that being a DH is hard because you really have to work to stay in the game.
HOF, I don’t know…I think way too many borderline cases are there. (I like the suggestion that for every guy you move in, you have to move one out.) But he was a wonderful player for a couple of years, and a great hitter for many more.
Can we set aside the special pleading for Edgar? Maybe he was unlucky in that he wasn’t young when he got the call, yadda yadda yadda. But he was certainly very lucky to play when the league allowed the DH, lucky that his body allowed him to hit into his 40s, and very luck to play when baseball was especially kind to very good hitters.
I don’t see how the Edgar supporters can win the head-to-head with Thome. Leave the defense out of it, and ignore the counting numbers. Thome’s a bigger offensive force:
Thome .280 .408 .562
Edgar .312 .418 .515
Is there any sane manager who wouldn’t sacrifice .010 in OBP to gain almost .050 in SLG?
The anti-DH animus is not an immovable obstacle. Frank Thomas is a no-doubt, first-ballot HOFer, and he should have DHed every game he played. But his production is undeniable (.302 .420 .558), including a couple of seasons as good as anyone ever had at the plate and extending for a long period of time.
What will keep Edgar out is that he’s just not that special. He got on base very well with some good power, among the best in his league at his time. But what else brings him fame, making him worthy of the special Hall of Fame? The worry should be that if he gets in, the floodgates open to other very good hitters from recent years. Jimmy Edmonds, for one, would have to be a lock: he’s hit .285 .377 .527 while playing center field as well as anyone in recent decades.
It seems to me that Edgar (and Jimmy) are among the Very-Good-to-Great Baseball Players who are not quite worthy of the Hall of Fame. No shame in that, and no shame in being a fan of such players. Hell, there’s no shame in being a fan of Duane Kuiper.
I fully agree with Paul on the Giles case. When he finally got a chance to play in 1995 at age 25 it was only for 51 games and he posted a line of .355/.394/.594. Giles had been in AAA for 2.5 seasons before this posting a line of ~.300/.400/.500 and one season in AA of about the same thing. Surely he wouldn’t have been Griffy coming into the league at 19, but Giles was obviously ready roughly 2 seasons before he was actually given playing time. And then in the next 2 years he still only played 112 and 130 games. In all Giles probably missed 3 seasons worth of playing time.
EABinSTL, when comparing two players in such a way, particularly when they are SO close, it would probably be wise to use something that adjustes for park factors/leagues. In Thome’s career the league and park adjusted averages where .342 OBP and .433 SLG. For Martinez they were .337 OBP and .420 SLG. That narrows the gap by a significant margin (or gives Martinez a larger lead in OBP and less of a gap in SLG). Over all their OPS+ are 147 for Martinez and 149 for Thome. Their WARP3 numbers (which include defensive value) are also very similar 104.4 for Martinez and 109.9 for Thome.
Now, I’m not sure I support Edgar for the HOF, or Thome for that matter, but he surely diserves the discussion. Martinez’s #1 comp on B-R is Will Clark, not really a HOFer IMO, and his only comp that is in the HOF is Cepeda, who is not really a great HOF member to build your case around, even though I would say Martinez is better than Cepeda (Cepeda for his career had negative defensive value mind you). They both do have similar WARP3 to HOFers Tony Perez (106), and McCovey (112), and more that Killebrew (94), which helps both their cases. But they are both in that grey area for me at the moment, and I haven’t really decided which way they fall yet.
1. My bad on the Innings played defensively. I looked at the wrong column and listed games played. Either way, the point is that Edgar barely had a reason to own a glove, much less use it.
2. To those who argue that playing the field (even below avg a la Manny) has not merit, that’s simply not true. There is inheirent value in lineup flexibility in a player’s ability to play the field. So even though Manny is best suited to DH, his play in left field has allowed David Ortiz’s incredible bat into the lineup. That is not a marginal value.
“Griffey tested for steroids the same number of times as Bonds.”
-Erik
Um, two things. Testing for steroids and taking them are two very different things. Have you forgotten that Bonds actually acknowledged taking steroids albeit not “knowingly?”. And did you noticed that he has been indicted for lying to a grand jury about taking steroids?
And second, you have no idea how many times Bonds tested positive for steroids because the results are not made public
With all the fuzzy gray areas of baseball’s PED story, it’s worth being precise when we can. Bonds has never “acknowledged taking steroids,” not even in the leaked grand jury testimony. (Think about it, Brian: how would he be indicted for lying about using steroids if he’d admitted to using steroids?)
Good thing the quality of fan support is not a requirement for HOF entry. I was at Yankee Stadium when Manny Ramirez made his first appearance there while playing for the Indians. Manny, being from the Bronx, had a lot of family and friends in the second deck cheering him on. I was in the lower deck directly below them, sitting in the middle of a long row with my wife.
A brazen, drunken, white fan got tired of the yelling for Manny and gave a recognizable finger gesture to the group above. Being thugs from the Bronx like Manny, about thirty of them came down to the lower deck and what resulted I can best describe as a full blown riot. My wife and I were completely surrounded on all sides by people fighting and beating the crap out of each other. This went on for a full 5 minutes and not one cop or security guy showed up. After they beat the white guy good, they went back upstairs. Several innings later, the whole process repeated except this time a bunch of white guys met them at concession stand in the lower deck and they chased each other around while they beat one another. Still no cops. We were afraid at some point someone was gonna pull a knife or gun or something (pre-weapons screening days) and we’d get popped by accident. Glad to see Manny has retained his thug roots to this day.
I really don’t get the bash the DH thing. You’d think more highly of the guy if he went out and played poorly at 1st or 3rd, thereby hurting his team. yeah, that makes sense.
So Mike Piazza is a better all around player going out there and letting everyone and there mom steal second base then he would’ve been as a DH.
So apparently Frank Thomas is a better all-around player because he kicked the ball around at 1st for less than half his career then he would’ve been just DHing.
I understand a player being more valuable if he plays defense at even a below average level (in some cases, simply because it allows someone else to DH and not be brutal in the field), but playing defense poorly certainly does not make a player more valuable or better all-around or more “Hall Worthy” than the guy who makes a living solely by swinging a bat.
“Glad to see Manny has retained his thug roots to this day.”
What is your reason for this statement? Did he pull a knife out of the Green Monster? What are you talking about?
And please don’t tell me it’s because of the recent minor, insignificant scuffle with the traveling secretary. That was hardly a “thuggish” conflict. Probably better described as a “heated argument”, which I’m sure most men have had at least at one point in their lives.
Ugh…..*sigh*……
I like most of the arguments on here, I can understand most (if not all) even if I don’t agree.
But, someone brought up FP%, I thought we were beyond that.
A few years ago Brian Gunn wrote an excellent piece on Jimmy Ballgame and Edmonds’ chanced of getting into the Hall. He had a much greater case than most folks would think, though I’m afraid injuries have pretty much eliminated that possibility. But man, what a fun fun fun player to watch!
I don’t know if this is cool, but if anyone’s interested here’s the link to Brian’s piece:
http://redbirdnation.blogspot.com/search?q=edmonds+fame
Borrowing some research from the KC Star’s Bradfrod Doolittle from his article “Who’s on first? It should be Billy Butler” in Tuesday’s paper…
In the last 10 seasons there have been 71 times a player has made 25 appearances at 1Band DH in the same season.
Aggregate OPS at 1B: .865
Aggregate OPS at DH: .849
You would think it would be easier to just DH but maybe the numbers show something different? Maybe people shouldn’t write off players for being a DH. There might be some truth behind the sentiment that it’s “hard to stay connected to the game” when DHing after all.
“Glad to see Manny has retained his thug roots to this day.â€
Manny’s first appearance at Yankee Stadium was September 3, 1993. Here’s what Jack Curry wrote about it in the NY Times:
“In his second major league game, the 21-year-old rookie from George Washington High School in Manhattan picked up his first major-league hit with a ground-rule double in the second. After flying to left his second time up, Ramirez came back with his first homer.
But one long ball was not enough for Ramirez, who treated scores from his Washington Heights neighborhood to a splendid display by ripping a second homer off Paul Gibson in the eighth. The kid who played high school baseball minutes from the Stadium two years ago received a partial standing ovation in his first game at the park following his second homer.
“I just wanted to get a hit because all my friends were here,” Ramirez said. “I wanted to look good for them. They pumped me up.”
Geez, what a thug!
I know some ugly stuff has gown down in the stands at Yankee Stadium but I find it hard to believe that precisely the situation you describe could take place and not be mentioned in any accounts of the game. And even if it did, what would that have to do with Manny?
By the way, here’s a funny line from the same story:
“Ramirez drilled a one-out double that bounced over the left-field fence and scored on Felix Fermin’s single. Ramirez thought his hit was a homer and continued jogging toward third before he was alerted to return to second. It was a rookie mistake, and Ramirez’s teammates teased him, but he laughed last because he scampered all the way around the bases for real on two occasions later in the game.”
Rookie mistake….Manny’s been making that kind of rookie mistake for 15 years!
Ty Cobb would have to win “Dirtiest Uniform” hands-down, especially if you included the blood spilt from Home Run Baker and Carl Mays through the years.
At one point Edgar was 9 for 11 against Mariano Rivera. That qualifies him for something.
No Joe DiMaggio? Does this mean Jimmy Ballgame ranks as a better OF than Joe? You could certainly argue it.
Man, do I wish I had my copy of the New Historical Abstract handy… Brian Giles by as much of the Darrell Evans list as I can remember (characteristics of underrated players):
1. Players who do lots of things well are underrated; players who do a couple things well are overrated. Score one for Giles; he did pretty much everything well at his best.
2. Batting average is overrated; secondary offensive skills are underrated. The .294 average isn’t bad, but the .404 OBP and .511 SLG are much better; that’s another one for Giles.
3. Scoring runs is underrated; driving in runs is overrated. Giles has 1064 runs in his career, and 1026 RBI; it’s close, but he gets this one.
4. Players on championship teams are overrated; players on unsuccessful teams are underrated. Check.
5. Players in New York and LA are often overrated; players in more anonymous cities are often underrated. Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and San Diego? Check.
6. Players who are particularly quotable or loved by the press are sometimes overrated. No clue.
7. Players in parks that favor their skills are overrated; players in hostile parks are underrated. Petco, anyone? Check, at least for the last 4 years.
8. Historically, hitters in high-offense eras are overrated, pitchers in low-offense eras are overrated. No on this one.
9. Anything that breaks up a player’s career, particularly a team or position change, will tend to make him underrated. Giles has played all 3 outfield positions regularly, and had outstanding (at least) partial seasons for three teams. Check.
10. Any non-statistical contributions a player makes will tend to be forgotten over time, and will therefore be underrated. No clue, although Paul DePodesta says he’s great in the clubhouse. Call it neutral.
That’s 7 yeses out of 10, which makes Giles incredibly vulnerable to being underrated. Frankly, I think his career compares well to some of the other players on that list – Larry Walker, for example, may not have been as good. It’s close between those two.
Mikey – Ken Boyer was done as an effective player quite a while before Schmidt broke into the league. On the other hand, Ron Cey and Darrell Evans were also around at the same time, so it was still a hard period in which to excel at third base.
Sorry. Should have been more precise.
The point being, which nobody can deny, is that Bonds has been the target of a witch hunt which Griffey has not been subject to for no obvious reason.
Plus, its not like Bonds cheated or anything.
There is absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever that “PED” use makes someone a better baseball player.
I just feel bad for Barry because he has gotten the raw deal of all raw deals.
Plus, you could make the argument that just about any drug – Ritalin, amphetamines, cocaine, marijuana, etc. – is a “performance enhancing drug” for the player using it, even if it just helps them sleep better at night. Otherwise, if they cared about their careers, why would they do it?
Why should steroids be treated differently?
The real point is that no player should be considered “clean” or “tainted” based on some random sportswriters’ personal opinions.
I apologize. This is not really an article on steroids, although what Joe wrote about Griffey annoyed me and I couldn’t let it pass.
If you write a Stan Musial book, I will pre-order two hardcover first edition copies (one for myself and one for my buddy) the second it becomes available for pre-order.
<3 Stan Musial.
And yes, Barry Bonds was fantastic. Does that still matter? The guy cheated. No Hall of Fame for you!
Quick points and a question -
1) Manny hails from Washington Heights, which is close to the Bronx, but isn’t quite the Bronx (at least he grew up, played ball, and still has family in Washington Heights).
2) I think the point of Joe’s using any number to show GREAT seasons isn’t to say one player or another is “more” great, but set a standard so that then we can discuss when and why players become acknowledged as GREAT. That is, okay, Brian Giles put together 3 GREAT seasons, but no one really considers him GREAT (his defenders here, and I count myself one of them, would likely agree with that). Whereas some people do (or did) consider Mark McGwire GREAT, even though he put together the same number of GREAT seasons as Giles. In McGwire’s case it probably has to do with hitting 70. Okay, so then why is George Brett GREAT and not Giles. Maybe it has to do with seeing them play, or what they meant to their communities. But the point is, where is that line? When does a player reach that level, and why? I think that’s what Joe is trying to ask and I’m not sure if anyone’s answered it (and I’m not going to try to here).
Again, the point isn’t that Jim Edmonds was better than Joe D, or that A-Rod is better than Pujols, or anything like that. The point is, once a player has enough GREAT seasons, you’d think he’d be widely acknowledged as a GREAT player. So how many does he need?
Question: My understanding always was that Edgar Martinez was a DH not because he had Stuart-esque fielding skills, but because an assortment of knee injuries left him unable to play third. Is this correct? Or were the injuries just a polite way of saying that his defensive skills were severely lacking?
It seems to me this would impact the Edgar for the Hall discussion.
“…Bonds has never “acknowledged taking steroids,†not even in the leaked grand jury testimony.”
Actually, he technically did. He fully acknowledged taking “the cream” and “the clear”. According to the creator/distributor of those two substances, Victor Conte, they are, in fact, steroids, and there is no dispute over whether or not Bonds took them. The dispute is over whether or not Bonds knew they were steroids at the time he took them. It would probably be more fair and accurate to phrase it as “Bonds acknowledged taking substances that have since been proven to be steroids”, but regardless, he most certainly did acknowledge taking them.
“What player got his uniform dirty the most often in baseball history? Does anyone know?”
That’s easy. Darin Erstad. Did you know he was a punter for Nebraska?
He’s closely followed by Derek Jeter and David Eckstein (tie).
I’m not really a fan of the “Well, if you FORCE a DH to play the field, he hurts his team, so it should help his HoF chances if he doesn’t play the field!”
You have to a bloody butcher level fielder to not be a passable first baseman. Even Giambi, truly truly bad as he is, makes most plays (and is actually pretty good at scooping up Jeter’s horrible throws.)
Also, a DH who puts up a .900 OPS shouldn’t compare to even a bad fielder with a .900 OPS. To give a current example, while Manny is slowly roasting in Fenway’s left field, David Ortiz gets his toes massaged while sitting in the air conditioned clubhouse, drinking a girly drink.
I wonder who’s going to be more rested for his next at bat? This is why I’ve never understood why David Ortiz gets all the MVP love every year, and Manny never gets any. Manny > Ortiz.
As for the Manny and Edgar thing, sorry, but Manny >>>> Edgar. That’s really no comparison.
And there was one question that said “What would David Ortiz have to do to get into the Hall of Fame?”
At the least, ten more seasons like the ones he’s been having the past four years.
Brian Giles Black Ink is 2. Larry Walker’s is 24. Yeah yeah, Coors Field, I know, but still, 24 to 2. How exactly is Giles better?
I mean, Walker stole 230 bases at an acceptable clip (75%), Giles stole only 107 at a lesser clip (70%). BP rates Giles at -31 Fielding Runs Above Average and Walker as +44. OPS+, which takes park factor into account, rates it a virtual tie, with Walker at 140 and Giles at 139.
So how exactly is it that Walker “may not have been as good”?
Actually, Paul White, your account is mistaken in multiple respects.
Victor Conte, who has admitted distributing steroids to various people, is on record that he did NOT provide steroids to Bonds.
Bonds is also on record, saying that his trainer gave him various substances that he (Bonds) believed to have been arthritis cream and flaxseed oil. The government asserts that these substances were really “the cream” and “the clear,” but it’s only an assertion.
Bonds NEVER “acknowledged” taking the cream/clear. And what Bonds did take has NOT “since been proven” to be steroids.
That’s what the feds are going to have to prove next year. And that’s why they’re so desperate to pressure Greg Anderson into becoming a witness against Bonds. Because “we say it was steroids and we say he knew it was steroids” isn’t evidence, and is unlikely to win the day. If the “acknowledgement” and the “proof” you described actually existed, Bonds would be copping a plea instead of going to trial.
Giles was more durable in-season than Walker – 6 years of 150+ games to 1. More of Giles’s OPS+ comes from OBP, which is underrated when using OPS+. Giles played 300 games in center field to Walker’s 70, and 40 games at 1B/DH to Walker’s 108, so his hitting has a little more positional value.
Look, I’m not saying Giles clearly better than Walker; I’m not necessarily saying he’s better at all. But they’re closer than anyone thinks.
Oh, and you can immediately throw out the black ink totals for anyone in Coors – when Walker was there, it was by far the best hitter’s park in the history of baseball. If they switched locations during their careers, you’d currently be scoffing at the idea that Larry Walker was anywhere close to Brian Giles as a player (a lot of people would be, don’t mean to single you out).
RC wrote:
>In the last 10 seasons there have been 71 times a player has
> made 25 appearances at 1Band DH in the same season.
>
>Aggregate OPS at 1B: .865
>Aggregate OPS at DH: .849
This doesn’t show, despite RC’s assertion, that it is harder to DH than play first.
DH’s are often a way to “rest” players, or let them bat despite an injury. That suggests that players who put in significant time at both positions in a singel season well could have been tired or injured when they DH’d. Not a fair comparison at all.
To be fair to RC, he just asks whether it might be true. I say that there is nothing in these numbers to suggest that it is.
The really nice thing about Joe’s topic here is that it is entirely rooted in what players did, not what they COULD have done. Might have done. Should have done.
It’s doesn’t matter how late someone came up. Or how injuries changed their career. They did what they did.
Accept for a moment — just for the sake of arguement — that Griffey in Seattle was better than Bonds. Then he got hurt. And Bonds passed him.
Parcell’s says “You are what you are.” A 4-4 team is a a 4-4 team. Edgar was a DH. He didn’t play regularly until he was 27. Those are just facts. Like his hitting right handed and being under 6″ tall.
I’m really surprised that you would just rake Brian Giles over the coals like that Joe.
I decided to use BR and look up his stats and he comes out pretty good.
His seasons from 99-02 (where I assume his 3 GREAT seasons come from) are well, GREAT. Some OPS+ numbers for you: 156, 157, 150, 177. That’s some pretty excellent numbers right there. Then add in that he hit between 35 and 39 homers every year had an OBP over .400 (including ‘02 where he had an incredible .450 OBP).
Heck his career line is a sweet .294/.404./.511/139 (the last number is his OPS+)
Then you look after those seasons in Petco Park and the only thing that looks really different is that homers and RBIs went away (except last year but that looks like an anomaly). Even this year he’s hitting .301 with a .398 OBP.
He might not be a HOFer but it’s a lot closer then it appears. Also beware of the guys who don’t “feel” like HOFers because we all know how much you hate those labels.
Creston: “I’m not really a fan of the ‘Well, if you FORCE a DH to play the field, he hurts his team, so it should help his HoF chances if he doesn’t play the field!’”
I’m not sure anyone actually said that. It is more along the lines of: “Why is poor fielding first basemen considered better than a DH of equal hitting ability?”
Ok so the guy has to stand in the field for 10 minutes while the other guy sits on the bench picking his nose. Small advantage I suppose (though RC’s post shows other wise, as does Frank Thomas’ splits), but it isn’t like you could stick just anyone at DH and all of a sudden he’s Ortiz. The DH is a possition, like it or not, and we need to rate these possitions based on their own peers and place players in the HOF that primarily played this possition. However DHs have no peers in HOF, which makes poor fielding 1st basemen the best comps.
Second, how is this not similar being a pitcher in AL? All they have to do is pitch, and for a starter make about 50 plays in the field a year. Are we going to discredit Roger Clemens compaired to John Smoltz for the time Roger spent in the AL where he didn’t have to bat (similar to the Thome v. Edgar debate)? That sounds pretty silly doesn’t it? But it is basically the same thing. One league allows for a player that doesn’t do one aspect of the game well to not have to do that aspect, should we really inject some sort of artifical penalty for not doing something when the rules allow for it?
Edgar is greatest DH the game has seen (depending on how you view Frank Thomas), and he keeps up with meny of the games best 1st basemen (even in metrics that account for fielding value). That warrents this discussion, and we need to stop pretending that NO DHs will ever be good enough for the HOF simiply because they are DHs.
Lastly: “As for the Manny and Edgar thing, sorry, but Manny >>>> Edgar. That’s really no comparison.”
I don’t recall anyone trying to compair the two, just something like “if Manny were a DH he’d get in.” But anyway, I’d drop a few of those “>” Manny’s OPS+ 154, Edgar’s 147. Manny’s WARP3 113, Edgar’s 104. Manny is better, but not by a lot.
“It’s doesn’t matter how late someone came up. Or how injuries changed their career. They did what they did.”
But it does, Puckett and Koufax are largely in the HOF because they get credit for having a crippling injuries/diseases. I realize this isn’t what Joe was talking about, but when considering greatness other factors surely come in. Another example: Bonds’ or McGwire’s steroid speculation. The HOF is certainly not as simple as “They did what they did.”
Totally off topic, other than the subject of GREAT, but I know there are a lot of Springsteen fans here, so I thought i’d mention this.
When I saw Bruce earlier this year in Anaheim, Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine did a guest appearace on an electric “Ghost of Tom Joad”. The performance (and I understand he repeated it night two in Anaheim) was just awesome — really mind-blowing. Was clearly teh best guest spot with Bruce I’ve seen in my dozen shows. Backstreets.com called it “The highlight of the show, and one of the highlights of the tour, for that matter.” In any case, I heard the recording of one of the two nights on E Street Radio the other day, and apparently it was released on itunes for download. It’s a phenomenal performance, and for you Bruce (and Rage) fans, I recommend it highly.
Now that I think of it, Rickety Henderson most likely got dirt on his uniform at least 172 times in 1983, since he attempted that many steals that year. It’d be tough to get dirt on your uniform more often than that. He probably added some dirt on other plays as well.
Ol’ Rickety attempted so many steals and played so long, I think he’s got to be my pick for the guy who got dirt on his uniform the most often, both in one season and in a career.
“Actually, Paul White, your account is mistaken in multiple respects.
Victor Conte, who has admitted distributing steroids to various people, is on record that he did NOT provide steroids to Bonds.”
Please read more closely. I never said Conte admitted giving them to Bonds. I said he admitted that “The Cream” and “The Clear” are steroids. Which, clearly, he did. See the following, among many, many others: http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation/2008/05/victor-conte-la.html
“Bonds is also on record, saying that his trainer gave him various substances that he (Bonds) believed to have been arthritis cream and flaxseed oil. The government asserts that these substances were really “the cream†and “the clear,†but it’s only an assertion.
Bonds NEVER “acknowledged†taking the cream/clear. And what Bonds did take has NOT “since been proven†to be steroids.”
Fair enough. Bonds didn’t admit that the cream and the clear that he acknowledges taking were, in fact, “The Cream” and “The Clear”. Instead he claims that he was given perfectly legal substances that are essentially identical in appearance, application and, in one case, taste, to “The Cream” and “The Clear”. And the claims he did make were identical to other athletes who have since been proven to have taken steroids in lieu of previous assertions that they only took “flaxseed oil”. You’re correct. What was I thinking?
“That’s what the feds are going to have to prove next year…
Well, no, they’re actually going to try to prove that Bonds lied. They first have to prove that his cream and clear were actually “The Cream” and “The Clear”, but you can’t be convicted of perjury just for taking steroids, so that alone gets them nothing. They have to prove that he KNEW they were steroids and lied to them about it. And I never said anything in my first comment to the contrary.
So who’s the best player not to appear on this list? Killebrew? THe older brothers of Billy Ripken and Chris Gwynn?
Eric: How does his hitting have more positional value if Walker saved a LOT more runs with his glove?
If Giles was a poor CF (and he was), then he wasn’t helping his team by being out there.
Alex, I am glad you noted I wasn’t out and out saying those two numbers are absolute proof.
But also consider interleague play where guys who usually DH now play 1B. Maybe all of those guys don’t get to the 25 appearances at first in a season, though Ortiz had 45 and 34 appearances at 1B in 03 and 04 respectively, but I do think it should be factored in and not just chalked up to “resting” guys.
No mention of Craig Biggio in the dirtiest uniform discussion? The man laundered his clothes in pine tar.
Is there any way we could get a pitcher’s version of the Great List? That would be really interesting to see
Much of the discussion engages Joe’s question–how many HOF years makes one a HOFer?–only indirectly, by raising a different, though related, one: how much credit should a player get for what he did and how much for what he *would* have done had things been otherwise (had he not been injured, had he played in a different park or era, had he been called up earlier, had Babe Ruth hit behind him in the lineup, etc.)? This question is as difficult as Joe’s original query. It seems obviously unfair to ignore all counter-factual considerations–to ignore, for example, the effect that Coors Field had on hitting stats in its early years. But it also seems odd to send people to the Hall of Fame because they would have been famously great had their circumstances been different. I don’t see any useful rules to apply here. I think we’re stuck with case-by-case judgments.
Perhaps (for example) Edgar Martinez and Jim Thome would be all but indistinguishable had they had had the same knees and (somehow) the same team situation. Some statistics might help to encourage that conclusion, as Wally correctly points out above. But I am not fully moved by these statistics, as I cannot shake the thought that what Thome and Edgar have actually done counts for something that sets Thome above Edgar. I don’t have a compelling reason for this thought, but some might find it compelling to construe greatness as a measure of actual accomplishment more than potential abilities.
I don’t mean to suggest that Thome is a HOFer and Edgar is not. Whether either or both deserve to be in the HOF depends upon how large one wants the HOF to be, and how special each member of the HOF is supposed to be. I’m presently inclined to exclude them both. But the appropriate size of the HOF is a third question.
Tony B, wouldn’t laundering clothes in pine tar be cheating?
I’m in my mid-30s, and live in Vancouver — and thus got to see a lot of Mariners games in the 90s. And I can safely say that Edgar Martinez is the best right-handed hitter I’ve ever seen, with the exception of Manny Ramirez (and now Albert Pujols).
Edgar has a very good case to be in the Hall.
If Seattle management had been able to surround their HoF quartet with simply average ML players, the M’s would likely have won at least one championship, and the tenor of this debate would be much different.
There’s positional value to hitting, too. If you have a pretty bad shortstop, and a really good first baseman, and they hit at the same level, the shortstop is probably still a more valuable player.
Also, not that I’m saying Giles was as good defensively as Walker (he probably wasn’t), but BP’s fielding numbers (at least FRAA) aren’t the greatest thing since sliced bread. I’d be curious to see something more sophisticated, like zone rating or one of the PBP-based metrics; I doubt there’s really 75 runs of defense between them (although, again, Giles played tougher positions, so that difference is a bit too high).
Giles vs. Walker, using BBR’s Neutralize Statistics button:
Giles, .296/.406/.511
Walker, .299/.384/.539
Giles, 1317 runs created in 4451 (AB-H), about 7.99 RC/27
Walker, 1431 in 4903, about 7.88 RC/27
Walker has a longer career, but since Giles (a) was trapped in the minors for far too long, as others have pointed out, (b) was more durable in-season, and (c) is still playing, it’s hard to give Walker an edge for that. Defense, yeah, Walker was probably better. But Giles was a little better as a hitter. That’s pretty much the definition of “close.”
Brian Giles’ first MLB season with more than 300 PA was 1997, when his OPS+ was 112. So it is reasonable that he may have been *ready* for the majors before 1997.
Brian Giles in 1996 had an OPS+ of 162 in 140 PA. His AAA OPS was .988. So yeah, he was clearly ready for the bigs in 1996.
1995 had an OPS+ of 268 in a cup of coffee. In the minors that year his OPS was .891. So I’ll give him 1995 as being *probably* ready for the majors.
1994, his first year at AAA, his OPS was .870. Since almost every MLB hitter has to prove himself at a level before being promoted, I’ll say that in 1994 he established himself as being possibly promotable in 1995, but he didn’t hit well enough to make it clear that he deserved to be in the majors in 1994.
I’ll give Giles the better part of two extra seasons for his counting stats. But no more than that. His career is what it is: probably delayed by the team he was with, but not significantly. The first year he ever hit 20+ homers in a season was his last year with more time in the minors than the majors, and he didn’t really show power until 1999, when he was traded to the Pirates. I’ll guarantee if he’d shown a .600 SP or better in the minors, he’d have been in the majors sooner.
EABINSTL is just plain wrong about Frank Thomas’s need to DH every game he played.
In 1992 and 1993, Thomas had an RF9 *THREE* more than the average first baseman in his league while fielding 150+ games. 1994 and 1996 he also showed above average range for his position. His FP was about average, his range far above average. Then he slowed down a lot. Those four seasons certainly compare favorably to what Edgar Martinez fielded.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/thomafr04.shtml
Mike Piazza almost always had a better Catcher’s ERA than team ERA, meaning that despite his inability to stop runners from stealing bases, he called a good enough game so that he was his team’s best option at stopping runners from scoring. Stopping runs, or helping pitchers pitch better so they stopped runs, is far more important than slowing down the running game.
And here’s the thing about greatness: it comes in multiple flavors. Clearly the very first HOF class was able to choose players who had GREAT seasons, and plenty of them. But these days, and for a long long time, the HOF has rewarded two classes of players (and lets hope the guys from FJM don’t get on me for this): either players who were consistently above average for long enough, or guys who had enough great seasons no matter how long their career. There are a few players (maybe one a decade) who achieve both longevity and excellence. But for most players, it’s one or the other.
Take, for example, Eddie Murray. The second best switch hitter of all time. 3255 hits, 504 homers, 1917 RBI, 8 straight years with a top ten finish in the MVP voting, even 3 GG and 110 SB to 43 CS. And zero GREAT seasons by the 162 OPS+ rating. He belongs in the HOF. But he belongs not on the scale of his peaks, but the height and length of his valley.
So what the GREAT argument does is give us a basis to discuss players who didn’t have the counting numbers, but still maybe are worthy of HOF consideration. And as we move into the future, with HGH and who knows what new PEDs on the horizon, it also gives us a way of ranking players compared to their peers, because it seems probable that we will see more and more players with better but shorter careers.
Using Joe’s list, my number is five. Any player who manages five GREAT seasons deserves HOF entry, no doubt in my mind, unless there are issues of cheating and the like. Anybody with fewer than five had better have some longevity to him, like being the best hitter at his position, getting some large counting numbers, whatever. And I have to say, no matter what kind of metrics we come up with for a GREAT season, when a guy has an OPS+ of 156 four years in a row, finishes 5th, 2nd, 2nd, and 4th in MVP voting like Murray did, some of those years have to be great. So maybe greatness becomes absolute GREAT using RCAA or OPS+ or whatever, but if you finish in the top 3 or 5 in MVP balloting, you had a GREAT year.
The interesting question is going to be: what about Jeff Kent? I mean, Piazza, ARod, and Maddux are no doubt about it HOFers, and Bonds and Clemens would be save for the cloud of PEDs, but what about Kent. All time leader in home runs for his position, IIRC RBI as well. One GREAT year, winning MVP. Good in the post season, with an OPS of .880. But probably a negative base runner, definitely a negative base stealer, and just an average fielder at a very important position. A smart ball player, one of the best I’ve seen in recent years at giving up an out to move a runner from second to third with nobody out. But also at the center of many “jerk-related” controversies.
Does Kent get in as a GREAT player? Not unless he gets a big boost for playing second base. But a guy who has a career OPS+ of 123 while playing an adequate middle infield position has to deserve HOF consideration, unless we want to rule out everybody except for sluggers. I mean, look at Wade Boggs, never won an MVP, had two years where he batted over .360 without achieving GREATness, only two GREAT years in his career, didn’t play an important defensive position, and although he won a GG in a year where his RF9 was below league average (hah!) he was at best an above average fielder. His career OPS+ was only 130. And yet he wasn’t a 1B/LF/DH type, and he was a very reliable fielder (.011 FP above average) with average or slightly above average range at a middling defensive position. But 3,000 hits these days is the kind of counting number that is driving us towards GREATness, same as 500 homers.
So I say if we’re going to continue on this path, we *must* find a way to upgrade better fielders, especially at more important positions. We have to be able to move Wade Boggs from marginal to clear cut. Tony Gwynn, who had 5 gold gloves, a higher OPS+ than Boggs for his career, and was a decent basestealer (319 steals to 125 CS) only had one GREAT season, and that was a short year where he batted .394. Seasons of .370, .368, .362, not quite GREAT.
So the formula needs work: defensive adjustments. But I seem to be the only person talking about that.
Richard – good post on the Giles minor league stats; all I can throw in with it is the fact that, as a Cleveland prospect, Giles was stuck behind the Manny-Lofton-Belle outfield (and later the Manny-Lofton-Justice outfield), which is about the worst place you can be as an outfield prospect in the ’90s.
As far as range factor for first basemen goes… it’s not really a great stat. A vast majority (like, really huge – probably 80% or more) of the plays made by an average first baseman involve standing on first base and sticking your glove out at approximately shoulder height, and squeezing at the appropriate time. Not necessarily the best measure of defensive skill at first base; more a function of the groundball tendencies of the pitching staff and the range of the other infielders, at least 80% of it.
For what it’s worth, the badness of Piazza’s defense is overrated; a study by Sean Forman (the baseball reference guy) listed him as one of the best catchers in recent years at preventing wild pitches/avoiding passed balls (I wish I had the link handy; it’s on bb-ref somewhere). Oddly enough, Pudge was one of the worst in the same study, if memory serves.
[...] Piece about “Great” Seasons. Musial is tied for 5th with 10. [...]