Tony Gwynn: overrated?
Rae Wu
Career: (.339/.390/.458)
Last 3 years: (.350/.393/.501)
Does Tony Gwynn deserved to be mentioned as one of the greatest hitters ever?
In my opinion, the answer is a resounding... no.
Should Tony Gwynn be considered one of the best RF today? Again, I say no.
Bjjp2
>
>In my opinion, the answer is a resounding... no.
>
>
Gwynn is one of the greatest ever at the ability to get hits. However, when
you look at the total offensive package i.e. including power and walks, he is
not. I think Gwynn is a great player and deserves the accolades. Where I get
annoyed is when I see him held up above clearly superior hitters such as Frank
Thomas and Barry Bonds.
Kyle
consistently making contact with the ball. This is not to be confused
with true offensive worth, which combines that, power, and speed among
other things.
On 23 Apr 1999 17:48:16 GMT, ra...@aol.com (Rae Wu) wrote:
>The media always praises this guy as one of the greatest hitters ever.
>
>Career: (.339/.390/.458)
>Last 3 years: (.350/.393/.501)
>
>Does Tony Gwynn deserved to be mentioned as one of the greatest hitters ever?
>In my opinion, the answer is a resounding... no.
>
>Should Tony Gwynn be considered one of the best RF today? Again, I say no.
>
___
Kyle
Trying is the first step towards failure
Cubs Win! Cubs Win! The Good Lord wants the Cubs to win!
Lev Polinsky
:>Does Tony Gwynn deserved to be mentioned as one of the greatest hitters ever?
:>
:>In my opinion, the answer is a resounding... no.
: Gwynn is one of the greatest ever at the ability to get hits. However, when
: you look at the total offensive package i.e. including power and walks, he is
: not. I think Gwynn is a great player and deserves the accolades. Where I get
: annoyed is when I see him held up above clearly superior hitters such as Frank
: Thomas and Barry Bonds.
I would echo this. Gwynn is clearly not as good as any of the ~.400 OBA
guys with power. That said, he's had some pretty good years himself, he's
been a good fielder until about 1995 and at least a break-even runner his
whole career. He's currently in the top 20 in career OBA, so he's been
one of those players who has been valuable despite having little power and
few walks. I would agree with TB and call him an outer-ring HOFer; he's
too good at what he does, and not bad enough at the other things, to keep
him out. But he's certainly not the greatest hitter {alive/ever/since Ted
Williams/etc.}
--
--Lev http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~polinsky poli...@fas.harvard.edu
Jay
Kyle wrote:
> You have to understand the media's definition of hitting. That is,
> consistently making contact with the ball. This is not to be confused
> with true offensive worth, which combines that, power, and speed among
> other things.
>
Actually I'm not sure that the media are thinking that far ahead. Most of the time
they seem to lump anyone with any type of average into this great hitter category
but they aren't really consistent about it. Case in point is Garret Anderson
(although I haven't really heard anyone go on and on about him lately). Even when
he hit .321 (probably his best season to date) I don't think that I could have
considered him a great hitter by their definition, but they would. At the same
time I'm pretty sure those same people, if asked if Griffey was a great hitter
would have said yes he was too even in those years he hit .258 and .284. It's
clear that Griffey has greater offensive value than Anderson but they would both
have been considered "great" by the media, with no distinction between the two in
terms of power (or lack of). I think they have it already in their mind who is a
"great" hitter and who is not. They probably attempt to rationalize it by using
some methodology of ballancing different abilities, but to me they just don't seem
very consistent with it.
Samson
(Rae Wu) wrote:
> The media always praises this guy as one of the greatest hitters ever.
>
> Career: (.339/.390/.458)
> Last 3 years: (.350/.393/.501)
>
> Does Tony Gwynn deserved to be mentioned as one of the greatest hitters ever?
> In my opinion, the answer is a resounding... no.
One of how many? Top 10? Top 50? Top 100? His career PRO+ of
134 has him in the top 100, right up there with Al Kaline and
Paul Waner (to mention some RFs). Not exactly over a short
career, either. If those guys may be considered among the best
hitters ever, then I see no reason not to say the same of
Gwynn.
Is he "the best hitter of his generation"? No. But 'overrated'
and 'not one of the greatest' are not the same thing.
> Should Tony Gwynn be considered one of the best RF today? Again, I say no.
Today, as in April 24, 1999? Certainly not. But over the past 20
years, who has been better? Jose Canseco and Darryl Strawberry
had their moments. Salmon, Ramirez, Gonzalez, Sosa, Walker,
Guerrero, O'Neill, et. al may be better at the moment, but they're
not really Gwynn's contemporaries. Gwynn is still at least in the
top quartile as it is. Who else? Joe Carter? I can't think of
anyone.
Arthur Wohlwill
>From: s...@sch.tiac.net.move.sch.to.front.of.at (Samson)
>Subject: Re: Tony Gwynn: overrated?
>Date: 24 Apr 1999 21:40:42 GMT
>In article <19990423134816...@ng-fs1.aol.com>, ra...@aol.com
>(Rae Wu) wrote:
>> The media always praises this guy as one of the greatest hitters ever.
>>
>> Career: (.339/.390/.458)
>> Last 3 years: (.350/.393/.501)
>>
>> Does Tony Gwynn deserved to be mentioned as one of the greatest hitters ever?
>> In my opinion, the answer is a resounding... no.
(snip)
>> Should Tony Gwynn be considered one of the best RF today? Again, I say no.
>Today, as in April 24, 1999? Certainly not. But over the past 20
>years, who has been better? Jose Canseco and Darryl Strawberry
>had their moments. Salmon, Ramirez, Gonzalez, Sosa, Walker,
>Guerrero, O'Neill, et. al may be better at the moment, but they're
>not really Gwynn's contemporaries. Gwynn is still at least in the
>top quartile as it is. Who else? Joe Carter? I can't think of
>anyone.
Bonds
Boggs if he could have kept it going.
Arthur Wohlwill adwo...@UIC.EDU
Samson
Wohlwill) wrote:
> In article <smi-240499...@206.119.74.147>
s...@sch.tiac.net.move.sch.to.front.of.at (Samson) writes:
> >> Should Tony Gwynn be considered one of the best RF today? Again, I say no.
> > But over the past 20
> >years, who has been better? Jose Canseco and Darryl Strawberry
> >had their moments. Salmon, Ramirez, Gonzalez, Sosa, Walker,
> >Guerrero, O'Neill, et. al may be better at the moment, but they're
> >not really Gwynn's contemporaries. Gwynn is still at least in the
> >top quartile as it is. Who else? Joe Carter? I can't think of
> >anyone.
>
> Bonds
> Boggs if he could have kept it going.
If they had played RF, I might agree. Boggs was better at his
peak. Bonds was much better. Throw in Rickey Henderson, Tim
Raines, and George Brett. None of them playing right field
is an unfortunate impediment to their being considered
among the great RFs of the last 20 years.
James C. Kaufman
: Gwynn is one of the greatest ever at the ability to get hits. However, when
: you look at the total offensive package i.e. including power and walks, he is
: not. I think Gwynn is a great player and deserves the accolades. Where I get
: annoyed is when I see him held up above clearly superior hitters such as Frank
: Thomas and Barry Bonds.
But I usually don't see him held up above Bonds, Thomas, and co., except
as a pure hitter, i.e. ability to get hits -- I usually see him mentioned
more in the company of people like Rod Carew. I'm a Tony Gwynn fan, but I
wouldn't call him a better overall hitter than Thomas, Bonds, etc., and I
doubt many people would.
J
--
James Corey Kaufman
Yale University
home page: pantheon.yale.edu/~jckauf
playwright home page: pantheon.yale.edu/~jckauf/play.html
Discovering Magenta, my musical: www.midmod.com/magenta.html
James and Nate's Baseball Survey:
www.nuc.berkeley.edu/students/nate/baseball/survey
Cody Stumpo
Dawson. These are who Tony Gwynn must be compared to to be called "one
of" the best RF in the past 20 years.
Cody
Samson
<co...@csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Dave Winfield, Reggie Jackson, Reggie Smith, Dwight Evans, Andre
> Dawson. These are who Tony Gwynn must be compared to to be called "one
> of" the best RF in the past 20 years.
> Cody
I thought Dawson was a CF. But I'll take Gwynn over Evans,
Smith, or Winfield (or Dawson in RF). I'll take Gwynn '82-'87
over Jackson '82-'87, but if they are counted as 'contemporaries',
Jackson is superior.
Still, second best RF of his generation counts him as "one
of the best", for sure.
John Northey
> Dave Winfield, Reggie Jackson, Reggie Smith, Dwight Evans, Andre
> Dawson. These are who Tony Gwynn must be compared to to be called "one
> of" the best RF in the past 20 years.
Hmm...well, given that rightfielders are expected to hit as well as
any other outfielder (with the possible exception of LF) I figure
comparing all outfielders is a good way to see.
Using stats only from 1979 through 1998 and using only numbers from
seasons the player played in the outfield for at least one game (total
of 1243 players so I cut down to just players with 500+ games played)
we get the following (thats to Sean Lahman's database at
http://www.baseball1.com)...
Name G Avg OBP Slg OPS
GARY SHEFFIELD 576 .291 .434 .550 .984 (surprised me)
ALBERT BELLE 1084 .302 .375 .592 .967
BARRY BONDS 1898 .290 .411 .556 .966
MANNY RAMIREZ 702 .302 .390 .558 .948 RF
KEN GRIFFEY Jr 1375 .300 .379 .568 .947
LARRY WALKER 1171 .305 .382 .552 .933 RF
TIM SALMON 857 .294 .395 .528 .923 RF
JUAN GONZALEZ 1104 .290 .339 .568 .906 RF
RYAN KLESKO 646 .280 .360 .528 .887
DAVID JUSTICE 1102 .283 .378 .508 .886 RF?
KEVIN MITCHELL 1216 .284 .361 .521 .882
RUSTY GREER 662 .310 .391 .489 .879
DWIGHT EVANS 1719 .279 .384 .488 .872
MOISES ALOU 919 .295 .362 .506 .868
JIM EDMONDS 654 .294 .360 .504 .864
DANNY TARTABULL 1377 .272 .368 .495 .863
BOBBY HIGGINSON 564 .284 .367 .495 .861
KAL DANIELS 727 .285 .382 .479 .861
BERNIE WILLIAMS 938 .298 .381 .479 .860
DARRYL STRAWBERRY 1559 .258 .355 .504 .859
JOSE CANSECO 1387 .262 .344 .511 .855
ELLIS BURKS 1430 .290 .357 .498 .855
JAY BUHNER 1254 .256 .357 .497 .853
ERIC DAVIS 1402 .269 .360 .492 .852
JEROMY BURNITZ 548 .265 .357 .494 .852
TONY GWYNN 2222 .339 .389 .458 .847 (here he is)
PAUL O'NEILL 1618 .290 .369 .477 .847
KEN SINGLETON 574 .283 .383 .462 .845
JIM RICE 1389 .297 .354 .490 .844
RAY LANKFORD 1147 .275 .365 .479 .844
RAUL MONDESI 757 .295 .334 .508 .843
DAVE WINFIELD 2131 .285 .355 .487 .843
BOBBY BONILLA 1551 .284 .359 .480 .839
KIRBY PUCKETT 1783 .318 .360 .477 .837
JOHN KRUK 930 .297 .390 .445 .835
FRED LYNN 1398 .274 .355 .478 .833
DANTE BICHETTE 1291 .300 .333 .499 .832
MIKE GREENWELL 1269 .303 .368 .463 .831
RICKEY HENDERSON 2612 .283 .404 .426 .831
I edited out a handful of players who played one or two games a year
in the outfield (such as George Brett) but were not outfielders. I
probably left in a few who I shouldn't have as well. Remember, these
are the numbers only from years they played at least one game in the
outfield (Sheffield played a few at SS and 3B only).
In just OBP Gwynn would rank 8th (#1 is Scheffield at 434 although his
is helped by the weaker years being at infield positions...#2 is Bonds
at 411), but in Average he is #1 by a mile (339 vs 2nd place Kirby
Puckett at 318 with Lofton the highest active player other than Gwynn
at 311), and is #4 in games played (#1 is Rickey Henderson by 400
games over Tim Raines).
So, is it reasonable to say Gwynn is one of the best outfielders of
the past 20 years? I'd say yes as #8 in OBP over that time span is
very good and #1 in average (while it isn't the most valuable stat) is
hard to ignore. 26th in OPS hurts, but since most of his value is in
OBP you'd have to rank him higher I'd think, however using 1.5 times
OBP + Slg he would be #22 so not a great jump.
Not the greatest, but certainly a high caliber player.
John Northey.
Crazy Canadian and creator of the Fans of Teri Sue Wood site.
http://www.sentex.net/~jnorthey/TSW
David Grabiner
> Dave Winfield, Reggie Jackson, Reggie Smith, Dwight Evans, Andre
> Dawson. These are who Tony Gwynn must be compared to to be called "one
> of" the best RF in the past 20 years.
I think of Dawson as a center fielder, but his best year was playing
right.
And that best year illustrates just how tough the competition was; in
1987, Gwynn, Murphy, Strawberry, and Dawson were all MVP candidates in
right field. Gwynn would have been my pick for MVP, but Murphy or
Strawberry would also be defensible. (Dawson, who actually won, was
not.)
--
David Grabiner, grab...@math.lsa.umich.edu
http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner
Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc.
Wwwmaawww
>From: jnor...@SPAMISEVILsentex.net (John Northey)
>Using stats only from 1979 through 1998 and using only numbers from
>seasons the player played in the outfield for at least one game
Great list. Some surprises. But I think we need some era adjustments, since
the offense in years before 1986-7 were probably a good deal lower, and, IIRC,
runs scored took off again beginning in 1994.
I gotta believe Winfield, just to name one example, would look a little better
(plus I think he'd be adjusted upward to account for his playing in San Diego
and Yankee Stadium).
Alan & Erin Williams
>
> Bjjp2 (bj...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> : Gwynn is one of the greatest ever at the ability to get hits. However, when
> : you look at the total offensive package i.e. including power and walks, he is
> : not. I think Gwynn is a great player and deserves the accolades. Where I get
> : annoyed is when I see him held up above clearly superior hitters such as Frank
> : Thomas and Barry Bonds.
>
> But I usually don't see him held up above Bonds, Thomas, and co., except
> as a pure hitter, i.e. ability to get hits -- I usually see him mentioned
> more in the company of people like Rod Carew. I'm a Tony Gwynn fan, but I
> wouldn't call him a better overall hitter than Thomas, Bonds, etc., and I
> doubt many people would.
>
Big open-ended questions like this are beginning to make a dent in my
diplodicus hindbrain.
When 'Who's a better hitter?' is asked, it seems to me it's at least
partly a question without context. In the very helpful posting that
listed OPS for OF in the past 20 years, Tony Gwynn is obviously hurt by
his low SLG. High average, Lower than hoped for BBs, low SLG, extremely
low Ks. Why do I want to say #2 hitter?
This is where the all-purpose OPS bothers me. Tony's got less pop than
Winfield, oh yes. And far more likely than DW to hit the ball
*somewhere*. The hitters' role seems overlooked by this statistical
overview, IMO.
If my leadoff guy never gets an extra-base hit but has a high OBA, he's
still a good leadoff hitter, isn;t he? more likely than Sheffield to
start an inning that leads to a run, just least base-productive per at
bat.
If my #4 hitter never hits a single, but delivers hits that will clear
the bases, when he does hit, that's fulfilling his role, isn't it?
I know that 'offensive sequence' goes out the window after the first
inning, but there is still a value to having all types of hitters in
your lineups, I would guess. Singles and BBs with speed, Power and K's
with BBs, High Contact- Low BBs- No pop....I feel like we're looking at
apples and oranges. A big swinger would help a Clemens-style pitcher,
and occassionally hurt him deep. A contact hitter might do better
against Maddux or control-type pitcher than the slugger...without ever
dealing a death blow...does this make sense to anyone else or am I
babbling? (Go ahead, its a free country, say so if you think so)
Alan
Alan & Erin Williams
>
>
> Just to throw out another list, here's the almighty Dale
> Stephenson Peak List for prominent RFs through 1997:
>
> Peaks for Prominent Right Fielders
>
(snip of key)
> Name Peak Decade Outside Years FR Notes [HOF is *]
> Babe Ruth 528 20s 787 14+3@r 2 * (3 Yrs@P)
> Hank Aaron 314 60s 616 17+6 59 *
> Mel Ott 302 30s 471 15+3 62 *
> Frank Robinson 298 60s 471 11+8 60 *
> Harry Heilmann 285 20s 224 13+2@1 -33 *
> Chuck Klein 268 30s 62 10+2@l 15 * Vet. Comm.
> Reggie Jackson 250 70s 252 15+5 5 *
> Sam Thompson 241 1890s 121 10 52 * Vet. Comm.
> Paul Waner 237 30s 237 16 46 *
> Tony Gwynn 225 90s 172 15 123 Active
> Roberto Clemente 214 60s 145 18 162 *
> Al Kaline 212 60s 271 17+4 106 *
> Elmer Flick 210 1900s 140 9+1@c 24 * Vet. Comm.
> Sam Crawford 202 10s 270 14+3@c -49 * Vet. Comm.
> Jose Canseco 196 90s 85 6+4@d 2 Active
> King Kelly 190 1880s 78 8+6 36 * O/T Committee
> D. Strawberry 190 80s 78 9 15 Active
> Kiki Cuyler 186 20s 84 6+7 10 * Vet. Comm.
> Willie Keeler 177 1890s 123 16 2 *
> Bobby Bonilla 164 90s 94 6+6@3 -21 Active (-29 FR at 3B)
> Enos Slaughter 159 40s 109 13+2@l 1 * Vet. Comm.
> Tim Salmon 157 90s -4 5 78 Active
> Ross Youngs 152 20s 37 9 -2 * Vet. Comm.
> Paul O'Neill 146 90s 32 10 32 Active
> Harold Baines 143 90s 123 6+11@d 6 Active
> Harry Hooper 108 20s 54 15+1@l 93 * Vet. Comm.
> Ruben Sierra 97 90s -26 11 -37 Active
> Joe Carter 91 90s -38 5+8 -29 Active
> Sam Rice 86 20s 77 13+3@c 76 * Vet. Comm.
> Tommy McCarthy 71 1890s -59 9 45 * O/T Committee
>
> Winfield wasn't listed.
>
> (Who is more overrated, Tony Gwynn or Roberto Clemente?)
Sorry, Samson, but I don't see anybody under Clemente that I would place
above him...nor anyone above him that belongs below. He and Kaline were
pretty equivalent, and this list echoes that.
Alan
Keri Olsen and Arne Olson
Alan & Erin Williams wrote:
>
> James C. Kaufman wrote:
> >
> > Bjjp2 (bj...@aol.com) wrote:
> >
> > : Gwynn is one of the greatest ever at the ability to get hits. However, when
> > : you look at the total offensive package i.e. including power and walks, he is
> > : not. I think Gwynn is a great player and deserves the accolades. Where I get
> > : annoyed is when I see him held up above clearly superior hitters such as Frank
> > : Thomas and Barry Bonds.
> >
> > But I usually don't see him held up above Bonds, Thomas, and co., except
> > as a pure hitter, i.e. ability to get hits -- I usually see him mentioned
> > more in the company of people like Rod Carew. I'm a Tony Gwynn fan, but I
> > wouldn't call him a better overall hitter than Thomas, Bonds, etc., and I
> > doubt many people would.
> >
>
> Big open-ended questions like this are beginning to make a dent in my
> diplodicus hindbrain.
>
> When 'Who's a better hitter?' is asked, it seems to me it's at least
> partly a question without context. In the very helpful posting that
> listed OPS for OF in the past 20 years, Tony Gwynn is obviously hurt by
> his low SLG. High average, Lower than hoped for BBs, low SLG, extremely
> low Ks. Why do I want to say #2 hitter?
>
> This is where the all-purpose OPS bothers me. Tony's got less pop than
> Winfield, oh yes. And far more likely than DW to hit the ball
> *somewhere*. The hitters' role seems overlooked by this statistical
> overview, IMO.
Hitting the ball *somewhere* has very little value if it does not result
in the batter ending up at first base. Runners moved along are probably
balanced, all in all, by double plays not grounded into.
>
> If my leadoff guy never gets an extra-base hit but has a high OBA, he's
> still a good leadoff hitter, isn;t he?
A player with no power can be valuable if his OBP is high enough, yes.
> more likely than Sheffield to
> start an inning that leads to a run, just least base-productive per at
> bat.
No. Sheffield's career OBP is .390, same as Gwynn's. His career SLG is
..499, about 50 points higher. So Sheffield gets on base just as often,
but more frequently ends up at second, third or home. A team is more
likely to score with Sheffield leading off an inning than with Gwynn.
>
> If my #4 hitter never hits a single, but delivers hits that will clear
> the bases, when he does hit, that's fulfilling his role, isn't it?
It depends. If he "expands his strike zone" and drives in a lot of
runners with outs, he's probably not as effective at his job as someone
with a higher OBP, even if he has a higher SLG. It makes sense to bat
high OBP hitters in front of high SLG hitters, but that does not mean
that high OBPs aren't valuable at any position in the lineup.
>
> I know that 'offensive sequence' goes out the window after the first
> inning, but there is still a value to having all types of hitters in
> your lineups, I would guess. Singles and BBs with speed, Power and K's
> with BBs, High Contact- Low BBs- No pop....I feel like we're looking at
> apples and oranges. A big swinger would help a Clemens-style pitcher,
> and occassionally hurt him deep. A contact hitter might do better
> against Maddux or control-type pitcher than the slugger...without ever
> dealing a death blow...does this make sense to anyone else or am I
> babbling? (Go ahead, its a free country, say so if you think so)
Different types of players can have value, and the special nature of the
first inning raises the value of high OBP, low SLG hitters above what it
might be if they batted elsewhere in the lineup. I'd still take
Sheffield over Gwynn at every position in the lineup.
Arne
Samson
jnor...@SPAMISEVILsentex.net wrote:
> Cody Stumpo <co...@csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> > Dave Winfield, Reggie Jackson, Reggie Smith, Dwight Evans, Andre
> > Dawson. These are who Tony Gwynn must be compared to to be called "one
> > of" the best RF in the past 20 years.
>
> Hmm...well, given that rightfielders are expected to hit as well as
> any other outfielder (with the possible exception of LF) I figure
> comparing all outfielders is a good way to see.
>
> Using stats only from 1979 through 1998 and using only numbers from
> seasons the player played in the outfield for at least one game (total
> of 1243 players so I cut down to just players with 500+ games played)
> we get the following (thats to Sean Lahman's database at
> http://www.baseball1.com)...
[cut to RFs for brevity]
> Name G Avg OBP Slg OPS
> MANNY RAMIREZ 702 .302 .390 .558 .948 RF
> LARRY WALKER 1171 .305 .382 .552 .933 RF
> TIM SALMON 857 .294 .395 .528 .923 RF
> JUAN GONZALEZ 1104 .290 .339 .568 .906 RF
> DAVID JUSTICE 1102 .283 .378 .508 .886 RF?
> TONY GWYNN 2222 .339 .389 .458 .847 (here he is)
[...]
Just to throw out another list, here's the almighty Dale
Stephenson Peak List for prominent RFs through 1997:
Peaks for Prominent Right Fielders
Key to stats:
Peak -- total BR/A + SBR for the best (offensively) five years of
the player. Years are not necessarily consecutive.
Outside -- total BR/A + SBR outside the best five years
Decade -- decade in which most of the player's peak falls.
Yrs -- Number of seasons at this position with 300+ plate
appearances. Second number (if any) is seasons with 300+ PA
at other positions.
FR -- Career fielding runs at position, as estimated by Total Baseball III.
-- DA-based fielding runs substituted for 88-95
BR/A -- park adjusted linear weight batting runs, calculated by TBIII.
SBR -- stolen base runs. (SB*0.3 - CS*0.6). Not calculated for
years w/out stolen base totals.
Cody Stumpo
careers. What I came up with was standard deviations above the lg. mean
OPS each year, times the % of team's games played in. This seems like
the most statistically valid way I've heard of, rewarding excellence and
durability, although the resulting numbers are hard to interpret except
in relation to each other. I've posted various lists based on this
before, but for RF, the list of HoFers is:
Babe Ruth 55
Hank Aaron 45
Frank Robinson 41
Mel Ott 38
Al Kaline 30
*Sam Crawford 28 (also played two years pre-1901)
Reggie Jackson 27
Paul Waner 23
Harry Heilmann 23
Roberto Clemente 20
(Enos Slaughter 18, Chuck Klein 17, Kiki Cuyler 13, Ross Youngs 11,
Harry Hooper 9, Sam Rice 8, Willie Keeler 6)
Ready to join the mix are (Reggie Smith 23, Dave Winfield 22, Dwight
Evans 22, Andre Dawson 19)
Tony Gwynn is at 21 so far.
As long as Gwynn continues to hit above NL avg. OPS, he will add to his
score. Three more good years could get him into 8th place on this
list. His last three years have been
'96: 0.71
'97: 1.96
'98: 0.92
Any other current RFers are not going to do well, since they haven't
played long enough yet. Lots of them are on a strong pace so far.
Cody
P.S. http://www.totk.com/39col-19990330.html has a complete list of
HoFers and potential HoFers for every position.
dark
> 1987, Gwynn, Murphy, Strawberry, and Dawson were all MVP candidates in
> right field. Gwynn would have been my pick for MVP, but Murphy or
> Strawberry would also be defensible. (Dawson, who actually won, was
> not.)
I think that Jack Clark and Ozzie Smith were both much better choices as MVP for
1987, but Gwynn did have a great year.
But right now Tony Gwynn is probably the most overrated player. He has become
one dimensional having lost his fielding abilities, speed, and power. Without
the walks his only plus is his batting average. He is also lucky as is Cal
Ripkin to play out his career in high offensive seasons like 1993-1998.
I wonder what another on-dimensional player like Dave Kingman would hit if he
was lucky enough to play 1982-1999. Anyone feel like giving it a shot?
{}{}{} Posted via Uncensored-News.Com, http://www.uncensored-news.com {}{}{}
{}{}{}{} Only $7.95 A Month, - The Worlds Uncensored News Source {}{}{}{}
{}{} Multiple NNTP News Servers, With Satellite Feeds From The US & UK {}{}
Lev Polinsky
: But right now Tony Gwynn is probably the most overrated player. He has become
: one dimensional having lost his fielding abilities, speed, and power. Without
: the walks his only plus is his batting average. He is also lucky as is Cal
: Ripkin to play out his career in high offensive seasons like 1993-1998.
I don't think Gwynn is _the most_ overrated player; he's not much of a
fielder any more, but if anything his power has gone way up; the last two
years, he's had a .SLG over .500, something he'd only done twice in
previous years. Last year he was also hurt by the extreme nature of the
pitcher's park he played in. The difference between Gwynn and Ripken is
that Gwynn has still managed to be above-average offensively.
Paul Wenthold
>
> James C. Kaufman wrote:
> >
> > Bjjp2 (bj...@aol.com) wrote:
> >
> > : Gwynn is one of the greatest ever at the ability to get hits. However, when
> > : you look at the total offensive package i.e. including power and walks, he is
> > : not. I think Gwynn is a great player and deserves the accolades. Where I get
> > : annoyed is when I see him held up above clearly superior hitters such as Frank
> > : Thomas and Barry Bonds.
> >
> > But I usually don't see him held up above Bonds, Thomas, and co., except
> > as a pure hitter, i.e. ability to get hits -- I usually see him mentioned
> > more in the company of people like Rod Carew. I'm a Tony Gwynn fan, but I
> > wouldn't call him a better overall hitter than Thomas, Bonds, etc., and I
> > doubt many people would.
> >
>
> Big open-ended questions like this are beginning to make a dent in my
> diplodicus hindbrain.
>
> When 'Who's a better hitter?' is asked, it seems to me it's at least
> partly a question without context. In the very helpful posting that
> listed OPS for OF in the past 20 years, Tony Gwynn is obviously hurt by
> his low SLG. High average, Lower than hoped for BBs, low SLG, extremely
> low Ks. Why do I want to say #2 hitter?
>
> This is where the all-purpose OPS bothers me. Tony's got less pop than
> Winfield, oh yes. And far more likely than DW to hit the ball
> *somewhere*. The hitters' role seems overlooked by this statistical
> overview, IMO.
>
Hitting the ball somewhere is an important skill in little
league. For major leaguers, it is a minor issue.
> If my leadoff guy never gets an extra-base hit but has a high OBA, he's
> still a good leadoff hitter, isn;t he?
And if your leadoff guy strikes out instead of grounding out,
it doesn't matter, right? So much for your claim above.
more likely than Sheffield to
> start an inning that leads to a run, just least base-productive per at
> bat.
>
> If my #4 hitter never hits a single, but delivers hits that will clear
> the bases, when he does hit, that's fulfilling his role, isn't it?
>
Depends how often he does it.
> I know that 'offensive sequence' goes out the window after the first
> inning, but there is still a value to having all types of hitters in
> your lineups, I would guess.
There is more value in having _good_ hitters in your lineup.
Every team _has_ to have a RF. They don't _have_ to have
a rightfielder with no power.
And there's another problem. If it's good to have "all types
of hitters," where are you going to find power hitting guys
if you don't get it from your RF?
Nah, get our high OBP guys to be the ones that typically
don't have much power, SS, 2B, C, and then let the other
guys provide the power.
Singles and BBs with speed, Power and K's
> with BBs, High Contact- Low BBs- No pop....I feel like we're looking at
> apples and oranges. A big swinger would help a Clemens-style pitcher,
> and occassionally hurt him deep. A contact hitter might do better
> against Maddux or control-type pitcher than the slugger...without ever
> dealing a death blow...does this make sense to anyone else or am I
> babbling?
No, you are babbling.
Sure, the contact hitter might do better against Maddux, but
159 out of 162 games _aren't_ against Maddux. It doesn't make
any sense at all to design your team around one particular
pitcher or pitching style. You win more games by chosing a
strategy that is most effective against the most pitchers,
because that is how you win the most. It doesn't do any good
to win all the games against Maddux and then lose all the
games against everyone else.
paul
Bjjp2
>Bjjp2 (bj...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>: Gwynn is one of the greatest ever at the ability to get hits. However,
>when
>: you look at the total offensive package i.e. including power and walks, he
>is
>: not. I think Gwynn is a great player and deserves the accolades. Where I
>get
>: annoyed is when I see him held up above clearly superior hitters such as
>Frank
>: Thomas and Barry Bonds.
>
>But I usually don't see him held up above Bonds, Thomas, and co., except
>as a pure hitter, i.e. ability to get hits -- I usually see him mentioned
>more in the company of people like Rod Carew.
Well, did you see the SI cover story about a year ago that called Gwynn" the
best hitter since Ted Williams"?
Nelson Lu
dark <gb...@cyberwarrior.com> wrote:
> But right now Tony Gwynn is probably the most overrated player. He has become
>one dimensional having lost his fielding abilities, speed, and power. Without
Uh, general assertion is right but the complaint itself is off, as far as power
is concerned; Gwynn is currently showing much more power than he had shown at
any other time during his career. He had 33 HRs combined in '97 and '98, while
he had just 90 for the other 14 seasons of his career. It has somewhat made up
for the declines in the other area of his game.
===============================================================================
GO ANAHEIM ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (n...@cs.stanford.edu)
RStLoup
get too down on a guy who, by these numbers, seems to be legitimately in the
company of guys like Paul Waner, Roberto Clemente, Al Kaline, and Sam Crawford
(especially if he rounds out his career with a couple more decent seasons.)
These are splendid, HOF-caliber players, and it seems to me that placing Gwynn
in their company is testimony to a legitimate greatness. An HOF pretender he
is not.
Now, granted, SI shouldn't be calling him the "greatest hitter since Ted
Williams" although in fairness to SI, my (perhaps incorrect) recollection of
that article is that it dealt with relative batting average, and by those
standards, Gwynn is an interesting player. Having a high batting average isn't
equivalent to being the most effective run producer, but it is something that
is definitely noteworthy about Gwynn. But then, I also think it's noteworthy
to look at the K rates of guys like Rube Waddell and Dazzy Vance relative to
their eras in order to appreciate them as being among the greatest strikeout
pitchers ever.
Gwynn's batting average records are remarkable, and he's a worthy HOF'er; no
shame in that.
David Grabiner
[Quoting Dale Stephenson's list)
> Name Peak Decade Outside Years FR Notes [HOF is *]
> Harry Heilmann 285 20s 224 13+2@1 -33 *
5th best peak, and a great hitter, but his poor fielding rating is
justified.
> Chuck Klein 268 30s 62 10+2@l 15 * Vet. Comm.
6th best peak all-time; but you never hear about him as a great player.
> Reggie Jackson 250 70s 252 15+5 5 *
> Sam Thompson 241 1890s 121 10 52 * Vet. Comm.
> Paul Waner 237 30s 237 16 46 *
> Tony Gwynn 225 90s 172 15 123 Active
> Roberto Clemente 214 60s 145 18 162 *
Very comparable, and both overrated by the public. Clemente was a great
fielder, so he's actually close to some of the players above, but how
many fans would rate Waner, or Reggie, or Heilmann, as comparable to
Clemente?
> Al Kaline 212 60s 271 17+4 106 *
The best comparable for Clemente; he wasn't quite as good a fielder, but
he was a great player before age 26, and Clemente wasn't.
> Elmer Flick 210 1900s 140 9+1@c 24 * Vet. Comm.
> Sam Crawford 202 10s 270 14+3@c -49 * Vet. Comm.
Another player nobody would think of comparaing to Clemente. His
fielding runs are questionable; he was certainly very fast.
> Willie Keeler 177 1890s 123 16 2 *
> Enos Slaughter 159 40s 109 13+2@l 1 * Vet. Comm.
> Harold Baines 143 90s 123 6+11@d 6 Active
> Winfield wasn't listed.
These are the only others with good, long careers, and it's clear that
Gwynn and Clemente are better than all three.
James Kahn
>> (Who is more overrated, Tony Gwynn or Roberto Clemente?)
[Stephenson list snipped]
>Sorry, Samson, but I don't see anybody under Clemente that I would place
>above him...nor anyone above him that belongs below. He and Kaline were
>pretty equivalent, and this list echoes that.
But that's the point: The list gives a good indication of his real status.
In the media and popular wisdom he seems to place much higher.
--
Jim
New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
http://www.panix.com/~kahn
Samson
> Samson wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Just to throw out another list, here's the almighty Dale
> > Stephenson Peak List for prominent RFs through 1997:
> >
> > Peaks for Prominent Right Fielders
> >
> (snip of key)
> > Name Peak Decade Outside Years FR Notes [HOF is *]
> > Babe Ruth 528 20s 787 14+3@r 2 * (3 Yrs@P)
> > Hank Aaron 314 60s 616 17+6 59 *
> > Mel Ott 302 30s 471 15+3 62 *
> > Frank Robinson 298 60s 471 11+8 60 *
> > Harry Heilmann 285 20s 224 13+2@1 -33 *
> > Chuck Klein 268 30s 62 10+2@l 15 * Vet. Comm.
> > Reggie Jackson 250 70s 252 15+5 5 *
> > Sam Thompson 241 1890s 121 10 52 * Vet. Comm.
> > Paul Waner 237 30s 237 16 46 *
> > Tony Gwynn 225 90s 172 15 123 Active
> > Roberto Clemente 214 60s 145 18 162 *
> > Al Kaline 212 60s 271 17+4 106 *
> > (Who is more overrated, Tony Gwynn or Roberto Clemente?)
>
> Sorry, Samson, but I don't see anybody under Clemente that I would place
> above him...nor anyone above him that belongs below. He and Kaline were
> pretty equivalent, and this list echoes that.
I think it does, too. I'm not making a slur about Clemente (or Kaline);
I'm just saying that Tony Gwynn is rightfully considered among the
great all-time right-fielders, and that just because he's 'overrated'
by the media doesn't mean he is not one of the best.
I think Clemente is also overrated by many. (See recent thread where
it was argued he should rank ahead of Aaron and Robinson.) I wonder
how many people, even those who call Gwynn "the greatest pure hitter
of his generation", would rank Gwynn ahead of Clemente?
John DiFool
David Grabiner wrote:
> > Chuck Klein 268 30s 62 10+2@l 15 * Vet. Comm.
>
> 6th best peak all-time; but you never hear about him as a great player.
>
That's because he played in the 2nd-best hitters park of the 20th
century (until Mile High/Coors came along): the Baker Bowl. He was
good but not great and if this method adjusted for park effects he
would drop 20 slots...
John DiFool
Keith Woolner
Um... I'm pretty sure that the peak lists are based on Adjusted Batting
Runs, which *are* park-adjusted (and league-adjusted). Klein comes out
6th even with these considerations.
--
Keith Woolner ke...@woolner.com http://www.woolner.com
Stathead Library and VORP reports, http://www.stathead.com
Owner, Red Sox mailing list, http://www.woolner.com/redsox/list
Newsgroup Moderator, news:rec.sport.baseball.analysis
Author, Baseball Prospectus 1999 http://www.baseballprospectus.com
Samson
<jdi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> David Grabiner wrote:
>
> > > Chuck Klein 268 30s 62 10+2@l 15 * Vet. Comm.
> >
> > 6th best peak all-time; but you never hear about him as a great player.
> >
>
> That's because he played in the 2nd-best hitters park of the 20th
> century (until Mile High/Coors came along): the Baker Bowl. He was
> good but not great and if this method adjusted for park effects he
> would drop 20 slots...
ABR does adjust for park effects. (I don't know if there's such
a thing as a 'stealer's park'.) The reason you rarely hear about
him as a great player is that he was spectacular for his first
5 full seasons, then quickly fell to average and stayed there for
another decade.
His TPR, for instance:
1929-1933: 21.5
Career (1928-44) 21.4
It's not like you *never* hear about him as a great player. He
*is* in the HOF, after all.
Roger Moore
>John DiFool <jdi...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> David Grabiner wrote:
>>
>> > > Chuck Klein 268 30s 62 10+2@l 15 * Vet. Comm.
>> >
>> > 6th best peak all-time; but you never hear about him as a great player.
>> >
>> That's because he played in the 2nd-best hitters park of the 20th
>> century (until Mile High/Coors came along): the Baker Bowl. He was
>> good but not great and if this method adjusted for park effects he
>> would drop 20 slots...
>Um... I'm pretty sure that the peak lists are based on Adjusted Batting
>Runs, which *are* park-adjusted (and league-adjusted). Klein comes out
>6th even with these considerations.
That's true, but Klein is still a suspicious case. He didn't exactly
stink away from Baker Bowl, but his numbers elsewhere aren't exactly HOF
caliber. He played all or part of 8 seasons there, and all or parts of 10
seasons playing in other parks. His best results outside of Baker Bowl
were never as good as his second worst in Baker Bowl. In a lot of ways
he's similar to Koufax; not as good as his raw numbers look, benefitted
greatly from park and league circumstances which made him look better than
he actually was, but still genuinely great in his best seasons even after
you take park and league into account. Exactly the kind of player who
tends to be overrated by casual fans and underrated by statheads.
--
Raj (r...@alumni.caltech.edu)
Master of Meaningless Trivia (626) 585-0144
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~raj/
Thomas R Scudder
: In <3723C1...@mindspring.com> Alan & Erin Williams <will...@mindspring.com> writes:
:>> (Who is more overrated, Tony Gwynn or Roberto Clemente?)
: [Stephenson list snipped]
:>Sorry, Samson, but I don't see anybody under Clemente that I would place
:>above him...nor anyone above him that belongs below. He and Kaline were
:>pretty equivalent, and this list echoes that.
: But that's the point: The list gives a good indication of his real status.
: In the media and popular wisdom he seems to place much higher.
There seem to be a fair number of players who are in the Hall of Fame or
are locks to go, deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, but are still widely
overrated by the fans. Anyone think we can get an all-time team together?
Rules for eligibility: The player must be a Hall of Fame-caliber player,
but still overrated by the media and the fans.
RF: Gwynn (or Clemente)
CF: Dimaggio
LF: ???
1B: ??? (Carew?)
2B: Ryne Sandberg, Carew?
SS: ??? (NOT Cal Ripken)
3B: Brooks Robinson
C: ???
P: Sandy Koufax
Hmm... we could move Gwynn to left and play Carew at first. Anyone have
any good candidates for catcher or shortstop?
--
Tom Scudder aka tom...@umich.edu <*> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~tomscud
The cardinal rules of safety to survive Turkish driving are: drive very
defensively, avoid driving at night, and never let emotions affect what
you do. - State Department Travel Advisory
Jay
Jay
qualifies (based on your guidelines). Are you disallowing him because you think
he is a marginal HOF candidate or because he was not "overrated" enough?
Thomas R Scudder wrote:
> I wrote:
> :> There seem to be a fair number of players who are in the Hall of Fame or
> :> are locks to go, deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, but are still widely
> :> overrated by the fans. Anyone think we can get an all-time team together?
> :>
> :> Rules for eligibility: The player must be a Hall of Fame-caliber player,
> :> but still overrated by the media and the fans.
>
> Jay <jci...@ix.netcom.com> asieoniezi:
> : Why not Cal?
>
> There's this strange sort of double-standard applied to Cal in the
> media/fan imagination, at least as I see it. On one hand, he's revered
> for The Streak, credited with "saving baseball" (before Mark & Sammy
> saved it again last year), identified with everything that's good in the
> game, et cetera. On the other hand, there's a sense that, if he had gone
> on the 15-day DL back in '89 or so, he'd be a marginal candidate, at best,
> for the Hall of Fame. People forget that he was, year in and year out,
> either the best or one of the best-hitting shortstops in the majors
> for a decade and a half, and that he was absolutely brilliant in '83, '84,
> and '91.
David Brazeal
Thomas R Scudder wrote in message ...
>There's this strange sort of double-standard applied to Cal in the
>media/fan imagination, at least as I see it. On one hand, he's revered
>for The Streak, credited with "saving baseball" (before Mark & Sammy
>saved it again last year), identified with everything that's good in the
>game, et cetera. On the other hand, there's a sense that, if he had gone
>on the 15-day DL back in '89 or so, he'd be a marginal candidate, at best,
>for the Hall of Fame. People forget that he was, year in and year out,
>either the best or one of the best-hitting shortstops in the majors
>for a decade and a half, and that he was absolutely brilliant in '83, '84,
>and '91.
I agree totally with this. In fact, I found myself doing it a couple of
years ago, when some discussion of sure-fire Hall of Famers was going
around. Before I went back to look at the numbers, I didn't remember just
how good Ripken was during his peak years. I think The Streak will end up
being bad for him in that way--it will make a lot of people forget how
brilliant he was, and he'll be revered as a cultural icon, but slightly
underrated as a player.
davidb
Jay
David Brazeal wrote:
Wow, that's strange. I always remembered how great he was as a player and I
always fel that I was overrating him as a player. But I also felt that most
other people were overrating him even more. The streak always seemed to be more
evidence of his greatness. I never thought of it that way. I always had this
nagging feeling that Ripken was chasing the streak. I honestly don't think that
this is a record that you really want. Just like Brett sitting out the last
couple of games to win a batting title. It's hard to fault a guy for wanting to
go to work every day, but as you are becoming less and less productive,
wouldn't it behoove you to take a breather once in a while? I don't think
anyone can prove that prolonging the streak was hindering him any more or less
than his eroding skills were but it couldn't possibly have been helping him.
Didn't he play the day after he broke his nose or something? And there were
other incidents like that, weren't there? The streak always served to make me
like him a little less than I might otherwise have, but that didn't change what
I thought of him as a ballplayer, in the general sense. I still suspect that I
am overrating him somewhat.
boo...@banet.net
2. There is a mystique that surrounds him. Partly due to his wonderful
throwing arm, partly due to the fact that no one saw him play except for
All-Star games and 1971 World Series. I suspect that any manager worth his
weight would play Clemente over Heilman or Klein or Gwynn. Put Clemente in the
Baker Bowl in the thirties and see if he hit 400 with 40 homers.
zene...@wwa.com
> Thomas R Scudder (tom...@umich.edu) wrote:
>
> : There seem to be a fair number of players who are in the Hall of Fame or
> : are locks to go, deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, but are still widely
> : overrated by the fans. Anyone think we can get an all-time team together?
>
> Good one. Let's see:
>
> : Rules for eligibility: The player must be a Hall of Fame-caliber player,
> : but still overrated by the media and the fans.
>
> : RF: Gwynn (or Clemente)
> : CF: Dimaggio
> : LF: ???
Ralph Kiner.
> : 1B: ??? (Carew?)
George Sisler. Or Bill Terry, if he's even HOF-deserving.
> : 2B: Ryne Sandberg, Carew?
Carew I guess...toughest position for me to fill, unless we count Rose
here.
> : SS: ??? (NOT Cal Ripken)
>
> The two candidates are Aparicio, if you think he's deserving, and Ozzie,
> if his reputation is high enough.
I would say Ernie Banks here. I've seen several "all-time teams" where
he is listed second to Wagner, probably because of the 500 HRs. He's HOF,
but he's not that good. I think most people consider Banks much "greater"
than Aparicio or Ozzie.
> : 3B: Brooks Robinson
> : C: ???
Buck Ewing.
> : P: Sandy Koufax
>
> My RHP for this team is Gibson; another possiblility is Dean. Round out
> the rotation with Carlton.
Koufax and Dean yes, and Ryan of course. But no way Gibson and Carlton,
whose careers were twice as valuable as those three, belong on this team.
Jeff
Jay
Thomas R Scudder wrote:
> Jay <jci...@ix.netcom.com> asieoniezi:
> : I'm not really understanding your reasoning for disallowing Cal. I do think he
> : qualifies (based on your guidelines). Are you disallowing him because you think
> : he is a marginal HOF candidate or because he was not "overrated" enough?
>
> Well, I didn't mean to imply that I was disallowing him - just expressing
> my opinion that he isn't overrated - I think he's a clear HOFer, even
> without the streak, and I think that he's actually a bit underrated as a
> player (as opposed to as a folk hero, or whatever).
>
> Feel free to disagree or argue otherwise.
>
>
I agree with you that he is a clear HOFer, I just didn't know why you said not Cal
Ripken.
Is it possible to be so underrated that you become overrated? vice versa? IYKWIM
Alan & Erin Williams
>
> In <3723C1...@mindspring.com> Alan & Erin Williams <will...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> >> (Who is more overrated, Tony Gwynn or Roberto Clemente?)
> [Stephenson list snipped]
>
> >Sorry, Samson, but I don't see anybody under Clemente that I would place
> >above him...nor anyone above him that belongs below. He and Kaline were
> >pretty equivalent, and this list echoes that.
>
> But that's the point: The list gives a good indication of his real status.
> In the media and popular wisdom he seems to place much higher.
Well, I think Bill James had him pegged pretty accurately in the
Historical Baseball Abstract. I think, off the top of my head that he
was 6th in peak and 9th in Career. I love Roberto, but Aaron was miles
ahead (of almost everyone!) and Robinson had a thunderous bat, and I
would have to push him ahead of RC.
Everyone seems to forget, also, that at 38 Clemente was cut short. I
felt then and offer it for argument now, that he showed every sign of
maintaining his 1972 levels for at three more years. Not that we can,
or could count that. Look at Kaline's last two seasons for contrast.
Clemente was an exciting player, and excelled twice in a WS setting.
That, and his remarkable, admirable personage may color recollection.
He deserves that, I think. He's one of the ten best at his position,
ever.
Alan
Dick Sidbury
>
> :>> (Who is more overrated, Tony Gwynn or Roberto Clemente?)
> : [Stephenson list snipped]
>
> :>Sorry, Samson, but I don't see anybody under Clemente that I would place
> :>above him...nor anyone above him that belongs below. He and Kaline were
> :>pretty equivalent, and this list echoes that.
>
> : But that's the point: The list gives a good indication of his real status.
> : In the media and popular wisdom he seems to place much higher.
>
> are locks to go, deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, but are still widely
> overrated by the fans. Anyone think we can get an all-time team together?
>
> but still overrated by the media and the fans.
>
> RF: Gwynn (or Clemente)
> CF: Dimaggio
> LF: ???
> 1B: ??? (Carew?)
> 2B: Ryne Sandberg, Carew?
> SS: ??? (NOT Cal Ripken)
Ozzie
> 3B: Brooks Robinson
or Rose
> C: ???
> P: Sandy Koufax
Ryan too
>
> Hmm... we could move Gwynn to left and play Carew at first. Anyone have
> any good candidates for catcher or shortstop?
Alan & Erin Williams
>
> On 27 Apr 1999 j...@socrates.berkeley.edu wrote:
>
> > Thomas R Scudder (tom...@umich.edu) wrote:
>
> > : SS: ??? (NOT Cal Ripken)
> >
> > The two candidates are Aparicio, if you think he's deserving, and Ozzie,
> > if his reputation is high enough.
>
> I would say Ernie Banks here. I've seen several "all-time teams" where
> he is listed second to Wagner, probably because of the 500 HRs. He's HOF,
> but he's not that good. I think most people consider Banks much "greater"
> than Aparicio or Ozzie.
>
Including the MVP voters in at least two years.
Alan
dke...@best.com
<zene...@wwa.com> wrote:
>On 27 Apr 1999 j...@socrates.berkeley.edu wrote:
>
>> Thomas R Scudder (tom...@umich.edu) wrote:
>>
>> : are locks to go, deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, but are still widely
>> : overrated by the fans. Anyone think we can get an all-time team together?
>>
>>
>> : but still overrated by the media and the fans.
>>
>> : RF: Gwynn (or Clemente)
>> : CF: Dimaggio
>> : LF: ???
>
Ralph Kiner was a legitimately great player who is routinely
underrated. You seem to do so too.
>
>I would say Ernie Banks here. I've seen several "all-time teams" where
>he is listed second to Wagner, probably because of the 500 HRs. He's HOF,
>but he's not that good. I think most people consider Banks much "greater"
>than Aparicio or Ozzie.
Same here. Banks was a great shortstop, if only a mediocre 1B
for the second half of his career.
--
Dave Eisen Sequoia Peripherals: (408) 752-1400
dke...@netcom.com FAX: (408) 752-2707
In our society, you can state your views, but they have to be correct.
--- Ernie Hai, coordinator Singapore Gov't Internet Project.
Ben Flieger
Thomas R Scudder wrote in message
>Rules for eligibility: The player must be a Hall of Fame-caliber
player,
>but still overrated by the media and the fans.
>
>RF: Gwynn (or Clemente)
>CF: Dimaggio
>LF: ???
Does Lou Brock count?
>1B: ??? (Carew?)
Mo Vaughn, I guess. Carew, if we mean guys who are gone. I can't
rightly think of any overrated 1B. Gehrig WAS that good.
>2B: Ryne Sandberg, Carew?
>SS: ??? (NOT Cal Ripken)
Ozzie Smith, I suppose. Or Ernie Banks. Yea, Banks is the way to go.
>3B: Brooks Robinson
>C: ???
Yogi Berra. Far and away Berra.
>P: Sandy Koufax
Boo! No, this is Nolan Ryan's position for ever and ever.
Dan Szymborski
says...
>
>
> Thomas R Scudder wrote:
> >
> > Well, I didn't mean to imply that I was disallowing him - just expressing
> > my opinion that he isn't overrated - I think he's a clear HOFer, even
> > without the streak, and I think that he's actually a bit underrated as a
> > player (as opposed to as a folk hero, or whatever).
> >
> > Feel free to disagree or argue otherwise.
>
> I agree with you that he is a clear HOFer, I just didn't know why you said not Cal
> Ripken.
Well, it's probably a bit difficult to overrate Ripken all *that* much
because of Wagner being the one player that really stands above the
shortstop crowd. Ripken has a pretty good argument for 2nd place and
it's just pretty obvious that he's not good enough for 1st place, which
is what it would essentially take to obviously overrate him.
> Is it possible to be so underrated that you become overrated? vice versa? IYKWIM
It most certainly is. Sportswriters *love* to tag very average players
as underrated so often that they become overrated. BJ Surhoff is an
excellent example of this. Nolan Ryan is an interesting case that he
spent parts of his career on both the underrated and overrated spectrum.
--
Dan Szymborski
Cze...@msn.com
Niemand erwartet die Spanische Untersuchung auf Deutsch!
Jay
Samson wrote:
> > >3B: Brooks Robinson
> > >C: ???
> >
> > Yogi Berra. Far and away Berra.
>
> MVP Awards:
>
> Berra: 3, Piazza: 0.
>
> Definitely Berra.
>
Why would you say that Berra was overrated?
Jay
Dan Szymborski wrote:
> In article <37251E0D...@ix.netcom.com>, jci...@ix.netcom.com
> says...
> >
> >
> > Thomas R Scudder wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, I didn't mean to imply that I was disallowing him - just expressing
> > > my opinion that he isn't overrated - I think he's a clear HOFer, even
> > > without the streak, and I think that he's actually a bit underrated as a
> > > player (as opposed to as a folk hero, or whatever).
> > >
> > > Feel free to disagree or argue otherwise.
> >
> > I agree with you that he is a clear HOFer, I just didn't know why you said not Cal
> > Ripken.
>
> Well, it's probably a bit difficult to overrate Ripken all *that* much
> because of Wagner being the one player that really stands above the
> shortstop crowd. Ripken has a pretty good argument for 2nd place and
> it's just pretty obvious that he's not good enough for 1st place, which
> is what it would essentially take to obviously overrate him.
>
I wasn't really referring to Cal's standing as far as all time ranking, or at least
ranking just among shortstops, I meant in a more general sort of way. I was guilty of,
as were many people (or at least that was the impression I got), elevating Ripken to a
level of a, let's say a Mike Schmidt, which I don't think is right. Perhaps closer to a,
Joe Morgan?
Dan Szymborski
>
> Thomas R Scudder wrote in message
> <9T6V2.2608$hl6.1...@news.itd.umich.edu>...
> >Rules for eligibility: The player must be a Hall of Fame-caliber
> player,
> >but still overrated by the media and the fans.
>
> Does Lou Brock count?
Sure, but not as much as The Count.
I don't know if I would count Brock for the purposes of this exercise as
there's a pretty strong argument to keep him out of Hall.
> >1B: ??? (Carew?)
>
> Mo Vaughn, I guess. Carew, if we mean guys who are gone. I can't
> rightly think of any overrated 1B. Gehrig WAS that good.
The first base crowd that is likely to be well-known enough for
media/casual fans to care enough to overrate (Foxx, Gehrig, Greenberg,
Killebrew, McCovey, Mize, and Sisler) have a pretty well-defined pecking
order.
> >2B: Ryne Sandberg, Carew?
> >SS: ??? (NOT Cal Ripken)
>
> Ozzie Smith, I suppose. Or Ernie Banks. Yea, Banks is the way to go.
I'd go with Banks here. Being a below-average 1B for a decade has a
really swanky way of hurting your career value. I have trouble thinking
of a player as an inner circle HOFer when they spend half of their career
as a below-average player. I can understand a couple of icky years at
the end a la Ripken, but 8 of 9? Ouch.
> >3B: Brooks Robinson
A good example here too.
> >C: ???
>
> Yogi Berra. Far and away Berra.
Not so sure here. I'd go for Ernie Lombardi before Berra.
> >P: Sandy Koufax
>
> Boo! No, this is Nolan Ryan's position for ever and ever.
I'm sure Ryan likes being overrated at the end of his career and
underrated at the beginning better than the other way around.
ADVIL~!
J. Edward Tuttle
j...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: There seem to be a fair number of players who are in the Hall of Fame or
: are locks to go, deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, but are still widely
: overrated by the fans. Anyone think we can get an all-time team together?
Good one. Let's see:
: Rules for eligibility: The player must be a Hall of Fame-caliber player,
: but still overrated by the media and the fans.
: RF: Gwynn (or Clemente)
: CF: Dimaggio
: LF: ???
Depends on your rules. Two men barred from the Hall would qualify here,
if you let them on the team; one could double at 2B.
: 1B: ??? (Carew?)
: 2B: Ryne Sandberg, Carew?
See above, for Rose.
: SS: ??? (NOT Cal Ripken)
The two candidates are Aparicio, if you think he's deserving, and Ozzie,
if his reputation is high enough.
: 3B: Brooks Robinson
Like Aparicio: only if you think he's deserving. Close call, IMO.
: C: ???
That's easy: now, they're all overrated, compared to Piazza.
: P: Sandy Koufax
My RHP for this team is Gibson; another possiblility is Dean. Round out
the rotation with Carlton.
: Hmm... we could move Gwynn to left and play Carew at first. Anyone have
: any good candidates for catcher or shortstop?
Gwynn at LF if we ban the miscreants. I guess I'll put Jackson in LF,
Rose at 2B, and Carew at 1B.
JHB
Thomas R Scudder
:> There seem to be a fair number of players who are in the Hall of Fame or
:> are locks to go, deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, but are still widely
:> overrated by the fans. Anyone think we can get an all-time team together?
:> Rules for eligibility: The player must be a Hall of Fame-caliber player,
:> but still overrated by the media and the fans.
Jay <jci...@ix.netcom.com> asieoniezi:
: Why not Cal?
There's this strange sort of double-standard applied to Cal in the
--
Thomas R Scudder
: Thomas R Scudder (tom...@umich.edu) wrote:
: : Rules for eligibility: The player must be a Hall of Fame-caliber player,
: : but still overrated by the media and the fans.
: Depends on your rules. Two men barred from the Hall would qualify here,
: if you let them on the team; one could double at 2B.
Well, they'd be eligible by the rules-as-stated. And Pete, at least, is a
classic example of the type. I'm not so sure about Jackson.
...
: : 2B: Ryne Sandberg, Carew?
: See above, for Rose.
...
: : C: ???
: That's easy: now, they're all overrated, compared to Piazza.
How's THIS for controversy:
Josh Gibson and his 800 (or however many) home runs
Thomas R Scudder
: I'm not really understanding your reasoning for disallowing Cal. I do think he
: qualifies (based on your guidelines). Are you disallowing him because you think
: he is a marginal HOF candidate or because he was not "overrated" enough?
Well, I didn't mean to imply that I was disallowing him - just expressing
my opinion that he isn't overrated - I think he's a clear HOFer, even
without the streak, and I think that he's actually a bit underrated as a
player (as opposed to as a folk hero, or whatever).
Feel free to disagree or argue otherwise.
--
Roger Moore
>On 27 Apr 1999 j...@socrates.berkeley.edu wrote:
>> Thomas R Scudder (tom...@umich.edu) wrote:
>> : Rules for eligibility: The player must be a Hall of Fame-caliber player,
>> : but still overrated by the media and the fans.
>>
>> : RF: Gwynn (or Clemente)
How about Wee Willie Keeler? Most people look at the .341 average and
assume he was great, but forget that he never walked, had no power, and
played the prime of his career in the highest offensive period in MLB
history. The only problem is that he may not be HOF-caliber, although I'd
argue that we should assume that any player actually in the HOF should
automatically qualify.
>> : CF: Dimaggio
>> : LF: ???
>Ralph Kiner.
No way. Kiner was actually a hell of a player, at least until he hurt his
back. I'll admit that he was sub par defensively, but he was a tremendous
hitter. Sure his batting average was nothing special, but he walked a ton
and had tremendous power, so he wound up with a .398/.548 OBA/SLG, which
is wonderful. If you want a really overrated LF just take Lou Brock with
his tons of moderate percentage stolen bases and empty batting average-
unless you're going to argue that he's not really HOF quality (see above
comments on automatic eligibility).
>> : 3B: Brooks Robinson
>> : C: ???
>Buck Ewing.
I don't know about that. Ewing was actually a very valuable player. TBVI
credits him with a career 130 PRO+, which is tops among HOF catchers, and
186 ABR. Given the shorter length of seasons back when he was playing
that's remarkably valuable. TB also rates him as a great defensive
player. If you want to take being in the HOF as qualification for the
team, I'd take Ricke Ferrell, who's overrated just by being in the Hall.
Samson
<a...@primenet.com> wrote:
> Thomas R Scudder wrote in message
> <9T6V2.2608$hl6.1...@news.itd.umich.edu>...
> >Rules for eligibility: The player must be a Hall of Fame-caliber
> player,
> >but still overrated by the media and the fans.
> >
> >RF: Gwynn (or Clemente)
> >CF: Dimaggio
> >LF: ???
>
> Does Lou Brock count?
Sure, but I'll go with Carl Yastrzemski.
> >1B: ??? (Carew?)
>
> Mo Vaughn, I guess. Carew, if we mean guys who are gone. I can't
> rightly think of any overrated 1B. Gehrig WAS that good.
That's overrated, not overpayed. I don't think Vaughn quite
meets the first requirement, anyway. Bill Terry or Frank Chance.
> >2B: Ryne Sandberg, Carew?
I think Jackie Robinson goes here. Yes, he was great and could
have been greater, but how can anyone be more overrated than
St. Robinson?
> >SS: ??? (NOT Cal Ripken)
>
> Ozzie Smith, I suppose. Or Ernie Banks. Yea, Banks is the way to go.
As a SS? I don't think Banks is necessarily overrated. If Phil
Rizzuto meets the first criterion, he's there. Otherwise,
definitiely Ozzie. Banks could be the 1B, though.
> >3B: Brooks Robinson
> >C: ???
>
> Yogi Berra. Far and away Berra.
MVP Awards:
Berra: 3, Piazza: 0.
Definitely Berra.
j...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: > : Rules for eligibility: The player must be a Hall of Fame-caliber player,
: > : but still overrated by the media and the fans.
: >
: > : RF: Gwynn (or Clemente)
: > : CF: Dimaggio
: > : LF: ???
: Ralph Kiner.
I'll join those who disagree.
IMO, Kiner's reputation would be: solid HOFer, nothing more. That sounds
pretty much correct to me.
: > : 1B: ??? (Carew?)
: George Sisler. Or Bill Terry, if he's even HOF-deserving.
I'm prohibited by my belief system from disagreeing with Terry's
immortality. As for Sisler, I don't think his profile is high enough to
qualify for this team.
: > The two candidates are Aparicio, if you think he's deserving, and Ozzie,
: > if his reputation is high enough.
: I would say Ernie Banks here. I've seen several "all-time teams" where
: he is listed second to Wagner, probably because of the 500 HRs. He's HOF,
: but he's not that good. I think most people consider Banks much "greater"
: than Aparicio or Ozzie.
But he *was* considerably greater than Aparicio. As for Ozzie, I disagree
about the reputation; I think he has a Brooks-like reputation.
: > : 3B: Brooks Robinson
: > : C: ???
: Buck Ewing.
Josh Gibson could well be the answer here.
: > : P: Sandy Koufax
: >
: > My RHP for this team is Gibson; another possiblility is Dean. Round out
: > the rotation with Carlton.
: Koufax and Dean yes, and Ryan of course. But no way Gibson and Carlton,
: whose careers were twice as valuable as those three, belong on this team.
Remember, you can be awfully good; it's not the fringe-of-the-Hall team.
I've seen Gibson as the RHP for postwar teams more than once, and I don't
see any way he is in the top three. Same, at a very slightly less level,
with Carlton.
(I'm pretty sure that each of my disagreements with you, with the possible
exception of Gibson, is based on our perceptions of reputation, not career
value).
JHB
Lance Freezeland
Alan & Erin Williams wrote in message <37252E...@mindspring.com>...
>Well, I think Bill James had him pegged pretty accurately in the
>Historical Baseball Abstract. I think, off the top of my head that he
>was 6th in peak and 9th in Career.
Close. 5th in peak and 9th in career.
For the record, James has peak as Ruth, Aaron, Robinson, Ott, Clemente,
Keller, Jackson, Oliva, Evans, and Maris. He has career as Ruth, Aaron,
Robinson, Ott, Jackson, Kaline, Waner, Crawford, Clemente, and Heilmann.
------
Lance lb...@altamont.net
"We don't rent pigs. Uva Uvam Vivendo Varia Fit."
Captain Augustus McCrae
"Astroturf is evidence of the existence of Satan. It was invented because
grass could not grow in hell." --- Lance
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
---------== Over 72,000 Groups, Plus Dedicated Binaries Servers ==--------
Michael Noschese
> In article <7g3991$rb6$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>, "Ben Flieger"
> <a...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> > >RF: Gwynn (or Clemente)
> > >CF: Dimaggio
> > >LF: ???
> >
> > Does Lou Brock count?
>
> Sure, but I'll go with Carl Yastrzemski.
Gwynn, DiMaggio, Yaz
>
>
> > >1B: ??? (Carew?)
> >
> > Mo Vaughn, I guess. Carew, if we mean guys who are gone. I can't
> > rightly think of any overrated 1B. Gehrig WAS that good.
>
> That's overrated, not overpayed. I don't think Vaughn quite
> meets the first requirement, anyway. Bill Terry or Frank Chance.
>
I would go with Carew or Terry, either or.
> > >2B: Ryne Sandberg, Carew?
>
> I think Jackie Robinson goes here. Yes, he was great and could
> have been greater, but how can anyone be more overrated than
> St. Robinson?
>
Because Jackie is noted for integrating baseball more than how well he
played the game. He and Doby both belong in the HoF even if they had
been two of the worst hitters ever. How long do you think players like
Mays would have had to wait if Jackie had fulfilled the stereotype of
blacks by falling flat on his face or rising to the taunts of other
ballplayers. Sometimes you shouldn't try to analyze the game in a
vacum.
> > >SS: ??? (NOT Cal Ripken)
> >
> > Ozzie Smith, I suppose. Or Ernie Banks. Yea, Banks is the way to go.
>
> As a SS? I don't think Banks is necessarily overrated. If Phil
> Rizzuto meets the first criterion, he's there. Otherwise,
> definitiely Ozzie. Banks could be the 1B, though.
>
Ozzie. backflips aren't enough. The fact that the Cardinals won two WS
are the only reason why he would be considered a serious candidate for
the HoF. If the Cardinals had been an average team his entire career
Ozzie would still be stuck with the great field- no hit label. Rizzuto
isn't a HoFer, the Yankee mystique isn't enough for him.
Steve Shissler
Catcher hmmmmm, maybe Fisk?
--
Thanks,
Steve Shissler
sshi...@combase.com
http://www.countdown9199.com
http://www.combase.com/~sshissler
Thomas R Scudder <tom...@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:9T6V2.2608$hl6.1...@news.itd.umich.edu...
> James Kahn <ka...@nospam.panix.com> asieoniezi:
> : In <3723C1...@mindspring.com> Alan & Erin Williams
<will...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> :>> (Who is more overrated, Tony Gwynn or Roberto Clemente?)
> : [Stephenson list snipped]
>
> :>Sorry, Samson, but I don't see anybody under Clemente that I would place
> :>above him...nor anyone above him that belongs below. He and Kaline were
> :>pretty equivalent, and this list echoes that.
>
> : But that's the point: The list gives a good indication of his real
status.
> : In the media and popular wisdom he seems to place much higher.
>
> There seem to be a fair number of players who are in the Hall of Fame or
> are locks to go, deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, but are still widely
> overrated by the fans. Anyone think we can get an all-time team together?
>
> Rules for eligibility: The player must be a Hall of Fame-caliber player,
> but still overrated by the media and the fans.
>
> RF: Gwynn (or Clemente)
> CF: Dimaggio
> LF: ???
> 1B: ??? (Carew?)
> 2B: Ryne Sandberg, Carew?
> SS: ??? (NOT Cal Ripken)
> 3B: Brooks Robinson
> C: ???
> P: Sandy Koufax
>
> Hmm... we could move Gwynn to left and play Carew at first. Anyone have
> any good candidates for catcher or shortstop?
Steve Shissler
>
> : 1B: ??? (Carew?)
> : 2B: Ryne Sandberg, Carew?
>
Don't agree with Sandberg here, if we're only talking hitting, he might be
overrated, but fielding counts for the HOF also. This thread has turned
slightly from the original which was mostly about hitting...
>
> : P: Sandy Koufax
>
> My RHP for this team is Gibson; another possiblility is Dean. Round out
> the rotation with Carlton.
>
> : Hmm... we could move Gwynn to left and play Carew at first. Anyone have
> : any good candidates for catcher or shortstop?
>
> Gwynn at LF if we ban the miscreants. I guess I'll put Jackson in LF,
> Rose at 2B, and Carew at 1B.
>
> JHB
Whoooaaaa, Carlton - four Cy Youngs? Remember the year when he won
something like 60% of his teams games...
RStLoup
hard to argue with. I will agree with the posts that also suggested Gibson
deserves mentioning. I am always impressed by the impression (to use a
redundant phrase) that Gibson seems to have left on people who watched baseball
in the 1960s -- when I suggest to those folks that Marichal was at least his
equal, this is often dismissed out of hand as a possibility, and Gibson is also
frequently described as being greater than Seaver, which I have trouble seeing
at all.
As a Bucs' fan, I have to admit that Clemente's mystique also surpasses his
actual playing greatness, especially among casual fans. I am often surprised
by how often Clemente's name comes up in trivia contests -- I might throw out a
question about some home run record and the answers will come back -- Mays,
Aaron, Clemente -- there are a surprising amount of folks, casual fans, who do
not by any stretch have an accurate picture of his skills, and think that he
was the all-around power-supplemented offensive package that a Mays or Aaron or
a Robinson was.
Had you asked me as a kid who was the more effective hitter, Clemente or
Stargell, I'd have named Clemente without a second thought. I see now in
retrospect that most of us undervalued how devastating a hitter Stargell really
was, and overrated the value of Clemente's offense, great though it was.
Clemente was actually a pretty mediocre hitter in many of his early seasons.
Clearly Clemente's untimely death and his proud demeanor have added to his
mystique, and I will say that there is no player I have ever seen who was
simply more "awe-inspiring" to watch. This is quite different from saying that
he was as great or effective as he seemed. But for a long time early in his
career he was thought of as something of a sullen malingerer and hypochondriac,
but the 1971 Series followed by his death completed a sudden and irreversible
transformation of that image.
Does this "overrated but HOF-caliber" team need a manager? Should I bring up
Casey Stengel again or is there a more obvious candidate?
Rob McLean
Thomas R Scudder wrote:
> There seem to be a fair number of players who are in the Hall of Fame or
> are locks to go, deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, but are still widely
> overrated by the fans. Anyone think we can get an all-time team together?
>
> Rules for eligibility: The player must be a Hall of Fame-caliber player,
> but still overrated by the media and the fans.
It's possible to be the greatest and yet overrated, like Michael Jordan. Babe Ruth, with
all the mythic stories about him handed down through the generations, is certainly the most
overrated baseball player ever. And the greatest.
--RMc
Rob McLean
David Grabiner wrote:
> Cody Stumpo <co...@csua.berkeley.edu> writes:
>
> > Dave Winfield, Reggie Jackson, Reggie Smith, Dwight Evans, Andre
> > Dawson. These are who Tony Gwynn must be compared to to be called "one
> > of" the best RF in the past 20 years.
>
> I think of Dawson as a center fielder, but his best year was playing
> right.
>
> And that best year illustrates just how tough the competition was; in
> 1987, Gwynn, Murphy, Strawberry, and Dawson were all MVP candidates in
> right field. Gwynn would have been my pick for MVP, but Murphy or
> Strawberry would also be defensible. (Dawson, who actually won, was
> not.)
Neither was AL winner Jorge Bell; it shoulda went to Alan Trammell. (Had
the Tigers won the WS instead of ralphing up the ALCS to the [gak!] Twins, he
might have won it...)
--RMc
Steve Shissler
--
Thanks,
Rob McLean <ro...@nac.net> wrote in message news:3725BBB0...@nac.net...
Bjjp2
>any good candidates for catcher or shortstop?
Surprised nobody's mentioned my clear choice for most overrated at
shortstop--Robin Yount.
>P: Sandy Koufax
This is obviously Nolan Ryan. Now considered by many in the media, and the man
on the street, as the greatest right-handed pitcher ever.
dke...@best.com
>Samson wrote:
>
>> In article <7g3991$rb6$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>, "Ben Flieger"
>> <a...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >CF: Dimaggio
>> > >LF: ???
>> >
>>
>> Sure, but I'll go with Carl Yastrzemski.
>
>Gwynn, DiMaggio, Yaz
Yaz was the best hitter in the American League over the last
half of the sixties. He seems to be underrated here which makes
me think it's unlikely he's overrated in general.
dke...@best.com
<j...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>zene...@wwa.com wrote:
>: On 27 Apr 1999 j...@socrates.berkeley.edu wrote:
>: > Thomas R Scudder (tom...@umich.edu) wrote:
>
>: > : but still overrated by the media and the fans.
>: > : RF: Gwynn (or Clemente)
>: > : CF: Dimaggio
>: > : LF: ???
>
>: Ralph Kiner.
>
>I'll join those who disagree.
>
>IMO, Kiner's reputation would be: solid HOFer, nothing more. That sounds
>pretty much correct to me.
That's *not* Kiner's reputation. He's routinely used in
the "If Kiner is in the hall of fame, then certainly
Joe Carter deserves to be." He's regarded by the mainstream
media as a borderline inductee and probably a mistake.
He's extremely underrated in all non-sabermetric circles.
James C. Kaufman
: James C. Kaufman wrote:
: >Bjjp2 (bj...@aol.com) wrote:
: >
: >
: >But I usually don't see him held up above Bonds, Thomas, and co., except
: >as a pure hitter, i.e. ability to get hits -- I usually see him mentioned
: >more in the company of people like Rod Carew.
: Well, did you see the SI cover story about a year ago that called Gwynn" the
: best hitter since Ted Williams"?
of course not -- who takes SI seriously??
J
--
James Corey Kaufman
Yale University
home page: pantheon.yale.edu/~jckauf
playwright home page: pantheon.yale.edu/~jckauf/play.html
Discovering Magenta, my musical: www.midmod.com/magenta.html
James and Nate's Baseball Survey:
www.nuc.berkeley.edu/students/nate/baseball/survey
RStLoup
Yaz was the best hitter in the American League over the last
half of the sixties. He seems to be underrated here which makes
me think it's unlikely he's overrated in general.
(end excerpt)
This suggests another topic: Players who are underrated by the likes of us,
because we get so used to telling other people that they aren't as great as
everyone thinks they are that we forget the quality they actually had.
Yaz is not a bad example -- very high peak in the low offense late1960s that is
easily forgotten.
Someone else mentioned Ripken and how truly valuable he was for a time as a
terrific combination of offensive and defensive value.
Don't throw things at me but I would put Pete Rose in this category. Take a
season like his 1968 in the offensive context in which it occurred and it's
just a fine fine season, no getting around it. He was never Willie Mays but he
put a lot of productive seasons together, which his subsequent record-chasing
seems to have effaced from everyone's memory.
I do draw the line at out-factories like Joe Carter, though. . .
Any other nominations?
Eric Roush
: Whoooaaaa, Carlton - four Cy Youngs? Remember the year when he won
: something like 60% of his teams games...
And for his career, he was essentially the same level
pitcher as Phil Niekro. Either Niekro's underrated,
Carlton's overrated, or both conditions are true.
Personally, I opt for door #3.
--
Eric Roush "I can show you how to make a bomb out of
ero...@phl.vet.upenn.edu a roll of toilet paper and a stick of
dynamite." Dale Gribble
This program has undergone a Y2K upgrade. Have a nice dak.
PHSpiegel1
>This suggests another topic: Players who are underrated by the likes of us,
>because we get so used to telling other people that they aren't as great as
>everyone thinks they are that we forget the quality they actually had.
I think Juan Gonzalez fits this description. He can't walk to save his life,
but a .600+ SLG makes up for a lot of that. Still not as good as the hype, but
hardly Joe Carter.
- Peter (phspi...@aol.com)
Will
RStLoup wrote in message <19990427091714...@ng-ch1.aol.com>...
*snip*
>
>Does this "overrated but HOF-caliber" team need a manager? Should I bring up
>Casey Stengel again or is there a more obvious candidate?
Ummm...Bobby Cox? (If he's HOF in the first place)
Will
Alan & Erin Williams
>
> In article <7g3l42$nq4$2...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
> <j...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> >zene...@wwa.com wrote:
> >: On 27 Apr 1999 j...@socrates.berkeley.edu wrote:
> >: > Thomas R Scudder (tom...@umich.edu) wrote:
> >
> >: > : Rules for eligibility: The player must be a Hall of Fame-caliber player,
> >: > : but still overrated by the media and the fans.
> >: >
> >: > : RF: Gwynn (or Clemente)
> >: > : CF: Dimaggio
> >: > : LF: ???
> >
> >: Ralph Kiner.
> >
> >I'll join those who disagree.
> >
> >IMO, Kiner's reputation would be: solid HOFer, nothing more. That sounds
> >pretty much correct to me.
>
> That's *not* Kiner's reputation. He's routinely used in
> the "If Kiner is in the hall of fame, then certainly
> Joe Carter deserves to be." He's regarded by the mainstream
> media as a borderline inductee and probably a mistake.
>
> He's extremely underrated in all non-sabermetric circles.
>
I think he's somewhat underestimated everywhere. For a five to seven
year stretch he posted numbers that are in very rarefied territory. If
you want an argument against 'protection', look at Kiner's teams. James
mentions the trivializing of Kiner in Historical Baseball Abstract.
SPahn's list of 'Fearsome Hitters' circa 1960 includes Kiner. Ten years
later, it does not.
I think his broadcasting stint hurt his 'collective memory'.
Alan
RStLoup
>Ummm...Bobby Cox? (If he's HOF in the first place)
Aagh. . . you had to do that, didn't you, after my series of posts last week
saying that I thought Cox was underrated by the media relative to the great
manager I believe he is. Funny, I never really thought about whether Cox would
go into the HOF. He's been very prominent in recent years but if he retired
tomorrow I doubt he'd be in, though I have only gut instinct to go on for that.
I was actually thinking in terms of historical greats on the managers. I don't
know whether LaRussa or Leyland is HOF-bound, but I opine the press overrates
each of them relative to Cox, Baker, and Alou. But it's so hard to evaluate
them with any confidence, aren't they?
Historically, I'd list as "underrated" managers: Fred Clarke (part of my
reason for praising him so often), Billy Southworth, Bucky Harris, and Bill
McKechnie.
Overrated? Stengel -- not to knock him, but his fame exceeds his greatness
IMHO. Chuck Dressen, perhaps.
dark
> : >as a pure hitter, i.e. ability to get hits -- I usually see him mentioned
> : >more in the company of people like Rod Carew.
>
> : Well, did you see the SI cover story about a year ago that called Gwynn" the
> : best hitter since Ted Williams"?
>
> of course not -- who takes SI seriously??
> J
LMAO!!! As a kid I worshipped SI. But, to paraphrase George Carlin, not
since the age of reason.
{}{}{} Posted via Uncensored-News.Com, http://www.uncensored-news.com {}{}{}
{}{}{}{} Only $7.95 A Month, - The Worlds Uncensored News Source {}{}{}{}
{}{} Multiple NNTP News Servers, With Satellite Feeds From The US & UK {}{}
David Grabiner
> zene...@wwa.com wrote:
> > On 27 Apr 1999 j...@socrates.berkeley.edu wrote:
> > > Thomas R Scudder (tom...@umich.edu) wrote:
> (snip).
> > > : SS: ??? (NOT Cal Ripken)
> > >
> > > The two candidates are Aparicio, if you think he's deserving, and Ozzie,
> > > if his reputation is high enough.
> >
> > I would say Ernie Banks here. I've seen several "all-time teams" where
> > he is listed second to Wagner, probably because of the 500 HRs. He's HOF,
> > but he's not that good. I think most people consider Banks much "greater"
> > than Aparicio or Ozzie.
> Including the MVP voters in at least two years.
The problem with Banks is that he was a great player only when he played
shortstop; a lsugging first baseman in Wrigley Field isn't a great
player unless he hits much better than Banks did.
Roger Maris also won two MVP's at about the same time sas Banks, but
nobody considers Maris among the all-time greats.
--
David Grabiner, grab...@math.lsa.umich.edu
http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner
Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc.
John Clay Davenport
>How do Ripken and Alan Trammell compare?
>
He's still trying to get his career EqA down to Alan's level, and is well
ahead of him in virtually everything else:
(EQA is equivalent average, EQR is equivalent runs, both fully adjusted. RAR
is EQR above replacement level. Peak Career is highest career eqa, after
qualifying for alltime list at 4000 PA; best 5 RAR is the sum of his best 5
seasons in RAR.
EQA EQR RAR Peak Career EQA Best 5 Seasons, RAR
Ripken .281 1590 629 .295 326
Trammell .280 1254 486 .286 283
Best season: Cal .331, 139 EQR in 1991. 4 .300+ EQA seasons, 6 100+ EQR
Alan .333, 126 in 1987. 4 3
I rate Cal as the much better fielder (~100 runs above average for his career,
to Trammell's ~25, both much higher than TB gives.)
Honus Wagner and Arky Vaughan are the only players to accumulate more RAR than
Cal Ripken at shortstop; Banks, Yount, and George Davis had more for their
careers, but spent more time at other positions. When I did a combined
hitting/fielding study, I rated Cal second to Wagner all-time; Trammell I
rated 13th.
--
Clay Davenport cdave...@nesdis.noaa.gov Meteorologist
NESDIS/NOAA, 5200 Auth Rd Rm 601, Camp Springs, MD 20746
Phone 301-763-8345
Author, Baseball Prospectus www.baseballprospectus.com
John Clay Davenport
Alan & Erin Williams <will...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>dke...@best.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <7g3l42$nq4$2...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>> <j...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> >: On 27 Apr 1999 j...@socrates.berkeley.edu wrote:
>> >: > Thomas R Scudder (tom...@umich.edu) wrote:
>> >
>> >: > : but still overrated by the media and the fans.
>> >: >
>> >: > : RF: Gwynn (or Clemente)
>> >: > : CF: Dimaggio
>> >: > : LF: ???
>> >
>> >: Ralph Kiner.
>> >
>> >I'll join those who disagree.
>> >
>> >IMO, Kiner's reputation would be: solid HOFer, nothing more. That sounds
>> >pretty much correct to me.
>>
>> That's *not* Kiner's reputation. He's routinely used in
>> the "If Kiner is in the hall of fame, then certainly
>> Joe Carter deserves to be." He's regarded by the mainstream
>> media as a borderline inductee and probably a mistake.
>>
>> He's extremely underrated in all non-sabermetric circles.
Which eliminates him from this club.
Howzabout Lou Brock for the left fielder? Regardless of consensus opinion, the
fact that he was voted into the Hall on the first balot makes him de facto
Hall-worthy.
Catcher is tough; the six most often mentioned in these lists (Bench, Berra,
Cochrane, Campanella, Dickey, Hartnett) are a comparable group, offensively.
Plus Josh, whose quality as a hitter against major leaguers is a WAG. The
contenders would be the "glove" catchers, like Bob Boone, who just couldn't
hit - but they don't make the Hall, either, so they're not eligible. Gibson, I
suppose, because the myths are larger than life.
Bjjp2
You just beat me to it. Juan was the first guy that popped into my mind. Sure
he didn't deserve those two MVP awards, but since when are 1.000 OPS's cause
for derision?
Samson
> In article <3725A328...@bu.edu>, Michael Noschese <mik...@bu.edu>
wrote:
> >Samson wrote:
> >
> >> In article <7g3991$rb6$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>, "Ben Flieger"
> >> <a...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > >RF: Gwynn (or Clemente)
> >> > >CF: Dimaggio
> >> > >LF: ???
> >> >
> >> > Does Lou Brock count?
> >>
> >> Sure, but I'll go with Carl Yastrzemski.
> >
> >Gwynn, DiMaggio, Yaz
>
> Yaz was the best hitter in the American League over the last
> half of the sixties. He seems to be underrated here which makes
> me think it's unlikely he's overrated in general.
If someone is underrated here, that's all the more reason to think
he's overrated in general. This all started with someone saying
that contrary to popular opinion, Tony Gwynn is basically an
average player. The sort of player who gets ripped on r.s.bb is
usually a very good player who has been elevated to the ranks
of immortality by the mass media.
Ted Frank
Samson <s...@sch.tiac.net.move.sch.to.front.of.at> wrote:
>If someone is underrated here, that's all the more reason to think
>he's overrated in general. This all started with someone saying
>that contrary to popular opinion, Tony Gwynn is basically an
>average player. The sort of player who gets ripped on r.s.bb is
>usually a very good player who has been elevated to the ranks
>of immortality by the mass media.
I don't think Gwynn is that overrated -- not when there are three other
right-fielders playing today who have won four MVP awards they didn't
deserve.
Gwynn gets called "one of the greatest hitters," but that's just
sportswriterese for "having a high batting average," something that's
undeniably true. When push comes to shove, there's recognition that there
isn't much beyond the batting average, and that the same sportswriters who
call Gwynn a great hitter would rather have 1998-model Greg Vaughn at the
plate in a critical situation. For all the complaints that BA is
overrated, MVP decisions don't seem to be being made on that basis.
You want overrated, talk about relief pitchers. Why all teams don't go to
bullpen by committee is beyond me: Trevor Hoffman would be 95% as valuable
if he was in middle relief putting up the same stats, but his salary would
be 3-4 million dollars lower.
NawrockiT
Samson <s...@sch.tiac.net.move.sch.to.front.of.at> wrote:
>If someone is underrated here, that's all the more reason to think
>he's overrated in general. This all started with someone saying
>that contrary to popular opinion, Tony Gwynn is basically an
>average player. The sort of player who gets ripped on r.s.bb is
>usually a very good player who has been elevated to the ranks
>of immortality by the mass media.
Gwynn is the sort of player who gets ripped for being overrated here mostly
because he's a high-average hitter whose value resides predominantly in his
batting average as opposed to his walks and power. If you pick two guys with
the same OBP and SP, the one with the higher BA will be more highly praised in
the real world, and the one with the lower BA will be a stathead fave.
My favorite matched set is Hal Morris and Mickey Tettleton, one of whom is
.369/.449 for his career, and the other of whom is at .360/.437.
Then there's Bill Madlock and Darrell Evans. One of those guys retired at
.365/.442, and the other at .361/.431. I don't have to tell you which one gets
talked up more around here; it's not the one who got moved to second base, but
the one who got moved to first.
Tom Nawrocki
Bob-Nob
>> > >RF: Gwynn (or Clemente)
>> > >CF: Dimaggio
>> > >LF: ???
>> > Does Lou Brock count?
>> Sure, but I'll go with Carl Yastrzemski.
> Gwynn, DiMaggio, Yaz
Frankly, if Lou Brock counts by virtue of his making the Hall
of Fame, then Joe Carter should be the third outfielder. Some people
here may not want to acknowledge it, but Joe Carter is going to make
the Hall of Fame. Joe Carter is Jim Rice, but more consistent and
better in the clutch (to the average fan). You might as well reconcile
yourself to it now (or start your anti-Carter campaigning now).
*sigh* Catch you later.
--Bob Machemer
--
Robert Paul Aubrey Machemer (Bob) | "For each time he falls, he shall
Amherst College, Class of 1996 | rise again, and woe to the wicked!"
ACRFC MVP, Teacher, Captain, Coach | --Don Quixote (Man of La Mancha)
"BOB IS NOB!"
Ivan Weiss
> Clemente is "talked up" for two reasons 1. He died a tragic and noble
> death 2. There is a mystique that surrounds him. Partly due to his
> wonderful throwing arm, partly due to the fact that no one saw him play
> except for All-Star games and 1971 World Series. I suspect that any
> manager worth his weight would play Clemente over Heilman or Klein or
> Gwynn. Put Clemente in the Baker Bowl in the thirties and see if he hit
> 400 with 40 homers.
I watched Clemente play his entire career, as I have watched Gwynn.I never
saw Heilmann or Klein, obviously, but I would take Clemente over Gwynn in
a NY minute, and that is not to dis Gwynn, who has had a great career.
As for Baker Bowl, IMO, FWIW, Clemente would have beaten that RF wall like
a drum without hitting a lot of HRs there. Clemente was as good an
off-field hitter as I have seen, but he did not hit to RF with a lot of
loft. I have several pictures of Baker Bowl that show the RF wall from
different angles. That wall was pretty high, and left-handed hitters with
uppercut swings had more HR success there. Does anyone have, for example,
Mel Ott's splits at Baker Bowl?
Ivan Weiss GLUTTON, n. A person who escapes the evils
Vashon WA of moderation by committing dyspepsia.
-- Ambrose Bierce: The Devil's Dictionary
er...@lehigh.edu
> Frankly, if Lou Brock counts by virtue of his making the Hall
>of Fame, then Joe Carter should be the third outfielder. Some people
>here may not want to acknowledge it, but Joe Carter is going to make
>the Hall of Fame. Joe Carter is Jim Rice, but more consistent and
>better in the clutch (to the average fan). You might as well reconcile
>yourself to it now (or start your anti-Carter campaigning now).
>
Do you really think that the average fan won't recognize that Rice is a better
player given that his career average and slugging % are both 40 points higher
than Carter's?
I know that the homers, RBI and runs are all roughly equal, but I hope that
there would be some acknowledgement of superiority by Rice. (I'm not saying
they willbut am seriously wondering if you think they won't)
Anyway, I don't see how this makes Joe Carter a HOF canidate given that Rice
hasn't garnered much support in the last few elections.
eric
Hank Gillette
>Babe Ruth, with
>all the mythic stories about him handed down through the generations, is
certainly the most
>overrated baseball player ever. And the greatest.
I'm not sure that's true. Ruth is celebrated for power and high batting
average, but he also drew a lot of walks and thereby had phenomenal
on-base percentages. I doubt the average person recognizes that. I think
the fact that he was also an outstanding pitcher is forgotten by many
also.
--
Hank Gillette
Ivan Weiss
> Samson wrote:
>
> > > >3B: Brooks Robinson
> > > >C: ???
> > >
> > > Yogi Berra. Far and away Berra.
> >
> > MVP Awards:
> >
> > Berra: 3, Piazza: 0.
> >
> > Definitely Berra.
> >
>
> Why would you say that Berra was overrated?
For the same reasons he thinks Jackie Robinson is overrated:
a) he never saw either of them play
b) he doesn't think it is important to have seen them play
c) he won't believe anyone who saw them play
d) he doesn't know what he's talking about
e) all of the above
zene...@wwa.com
> dke...@best.com wrote:
>>
>> [on Ralph Kiner:]
>> He's extremely underrated in all non-sabermetric circles.
>
> year stretch he posted numbers that are in very rarefied territory.
He's not underrated here. A while back he was put forward as a possible
VHOF candidate...I had to respond to point out that if we give him
*generous* credit for time lost to the war his career looks about like
Sisler's, and has less career value than (take a DEEP breath...) Frisch,
Bob Johnson, Dahlen, Jesse Burkett, Billy Herman, Fred Clarke, Joe Gordon,
Sherry Magee, among others. I'd say when Kiner's rep is compared to these
players, he's quite overrated indeed.
Usually statheads take a dim view of players with short careers who are
considered greats based on short peaks. Not sure why Kiner shouldn't get
the same treatment...
It may be Kiner doesn't belong on the list 'cos his general rep is no
longer all that high. But when a guy with less career value than Sherry
freaking Magee was making "10 Most Feared Hitters" lists, he would have
qualified then.
Jeff
zene...@wwa.com
> zene...@wwa.com wrote:
> : George Sisler. Or Bill Terry, if he's even HOF-deserving.
>
> I'm prohibited by my belief system from disagreeing with Terry's
> immortality.
???? This fairly demands an explanation...
> : Koufax and Dean yes, and Ryan of course. But no way Gibson and Carlton,
> : whose careers were twice as valuable as those three, belong on this team.
>
> Remember, you can be awfully good; it's not the fringe-of-the-Hall team.
> I've seen Gibson as the RHP for postwar teams more than once, and I don't
> see any way he is in the top three. Same, at a very slightly less level,
> with Carlton.
Well, it's hardly fair to hold it against Gibson that people picking
all-time teams today don't yet comprehend how historically great Maddux
and Clemens are. Sure, general perception doesn't recognize that Seaver
was a clear level ahead of Gibson (~10 career wins above replacement level
I'd estimate), but that singular fact doesn't put Gibson anywhere near
Ryan's level of overratedness.
I have Gibson, Carlton, Niekro and Perry all about even at around 80
career wins above replacement. The latter two are underrated but the first
two are pegged about right by reputation IMO.
Jeff
Cameron Laird
C'mon, Jeff; he had a high peak. That's all.
"Feared Hitter" is as good a label as any for
"peak in rarefied territory."
--
Cameron Laird http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html
cla...@NeoSoft.com +1 281 996 8546 FAX
David Marc Nieporent
NawrockiT <nawr...@aol.com.not> claimed:
>In article <smi-270499...@206.119.74.147>,
>Samson <s...@sch.tiac.net.move.sch.to.front.of.at> wrote:
>>If someone is underrated here, that's all the more reason to think
>>he's overrated in general. This all started with someone saying
>>that contrary to popular opinion, Tony Gwynn is basically an
>>average player. The sort of player who gets ripped on r.s.bb is
>>usually a very good player who has been elevated to the ranks
>>of immortality by the mass media.
>Gwynn is the sort of player who gets ripped for being overrated here
>mostly because he's a high-average hitter whose value resides
>predominantly in his batting average as opposed to his walks and power.
He gets ripped for being overrated because he IS overrated. I'll bet if
you ask nonstatheads who's better, Gwynn or Manny Ramirez, 99% will say
Gwynn.
>If you pick two guys with the same OBP and SP, the one with the higher BA
>will be more highly praised in the real world, and the one with the lower
>BA will be a stathead fave.
>My favorite matched set is Hal Morris and Mickey Tettleton, one of whom is
>.369/.449 for his career, and the other of whom is at .360/.437.
But one of them played catcher for half his career. And one of them has
hit 328/351 and 350/381 the last two years. It's not the same one.
Moreover, the one who hit better and played the harder defensive position
had 40% more PAs in his career.
>Then there's Bill Madlock and Darrell Evans. One of those guys retired
>at .365/.442, and the other at .361/.431. I don't have to tell you which
>one gets talked up more around here; it's not the one who got moved to
>second base, but the one who got moved to first.
Gee, might it have to do with the fact that one person's career is 50%
longer than the other's?
Not to mention the fact that "the one who got moved to second" moved back
after a season and a half. While the one who moved to first continued to
play there for another 5 years or so after the other one retired.
TPR has flaws, but it doesn't suffer from the BB vs AVG bias you suggest
here. Evans has a 34.6 TPR; Madlock, a 0.3 TPR. Could that have
something to do with who gets talked about more?
--
David M. Nieporent "Mr. Simpson, don't you worry. I
niep...@alumni.princeton.edu watched Matlock in a bar last night.
2L - St. John's School of Law The sound wasn't on, but I think I
Roberto Petagine Appreciation Society got the gist of it." -- L. Hutz
Alan & Erin Williams
>
> On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Alan & Erin Williams wrote:
> > dke...@best.com wrote:
> >>
> >> [on Ralph Kiner:]
> >> He's extremely underrated in all non-sabermetric circles.
> >
> > I think he's somewhat underestimated everywhere. For a five to seven
> > year stretch he posted numbers that are in very rarefied territory.
>
> He's not underrated here. A while back he was put forward as a possible
> VHOF candidate...I had to respond to point out that if we give him
> *generous* credit for time lost to the war
Why would you give him *any* credit for 'time lost to the war'? In his
rookie year he's 23 years old and leads the league in homers. What was
he supposed to do? Skip High School? Feller and Williams lost prime
years to WW2. Ralph at most loses two developmental years.
his career looks about like
> Sisler's, and has less career value than (take a DEEP breath...) Frisch,
> Bob Johnson, Dahlen, Jesse Burkett, Billy Herman, Fred Clarke, Joe Gordon,
> Sherry Magee, among others. I'd say when Kiner's rep is compared to these
> players, he's quite overrated indeed.
>
Ralph led the National League in *19* offensive categories in a 7 year
span. That include 3 SLG titles and 3 PRO titles. Did the players you
mention lead in that many categories *combined*? If you think Babe
Herman is Ralph Kiner's offensive equivalent I want some of what you're
smoking.
> Usually statheads take a dim view of players with short careers who are
> considered greats based on short peaks. Not sure why Kiner shouldn't get
> the same treatment...
>
Here's the core of our disagreement. If this was Norm Cash, 1961 (pop
that cork!) I'd understand. But six CONSECUTIVE years of blasting the
league apart is a pretty good sign that he established a true level of
production.
> It may be Kiner doesn't belong on the list 'cos his general rep is no
> longer all that high. But when a guy with less career value than Sherry
> freaking Magee was making "10 Most Feared Hitters" lists, he would have
> qualified then.
Well, you better alert the 1950's All-Star voters...or was that the
players he played against? Ralph's a legit HOF and IMO
underestimated...as you just showed, in r.s.bb as well.
Alan
j...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: On 27 Apr 1999 j...@socrates.berkeley.edu wrote:
: > zene...@wwa.com wrote:
: > : George Sisler. Or Bill Terry, if he's even HOF-deserving.
: >
: > I'm prohibited by my belief system from disagreeing with Terry's
: > immortality.
: ???? This fairly demands an explanation...
If you believe that Ross Youngs, Fred Lindstrom, and George Kelly are all
deserving, then you pretty much have to believe that Terry is deserving.
I have a very straightforward believe system when it comes to
already-inducted Giants: they all should be in. I won't argue or defend
that belief, but I won't abandon it, either.
(Hey, you're lucky you didn't hit on one of my other buttons, like the one
about how Roseboro set Marichal up).
: > : Koufax and Dean yes, and Ryan of course. But no way Gibson and Carlton,
: > : whose careers were twice as valuable as those three, belong on this team.
: >
: > Remember, you can be awfully good; it's not the fringe-of-the-Hall team.
: > I've seen Gibson as the RHP for postwar teams more than once, and I don't
: > see any way he is in the top three. Same, at a very slightly less level,
: > with Carlton.
: Well, it's hardly fair to hold it against Gibson that people picking
: all-time teams today don't yet comprehend how historically great Maddux
: and Clemens are. Sure, general perception doesn't recognize that Seaver
: was a clear level ahead of Gibson (~10 career wins above replacement level
: I'd estimate), but that singular fact doesn't put Gibson anywhere near
: Ryan's level of overratedness.
: I have Gibson, Carlton, Niekro and Perry all about even at around 80
: career wins above replacement. The latter two are underrated but the first
: two are pegged about right by reputation IMO.
I have no argument with that breakdown of actual value.
My impression -- right or wrong, I don't know -- is that Gibson's
reputation is growing, but that Seaver's has faded quite a bit, to the
extent that Gibson gets more press than Seaver. Actually, I'd call both
Feller and Hubbell underrated now, and Dean's reputation has faded,
although nowhere near enough to reach his value. At least, that's how I
see it.
The guy who seems to have practically disappeared, BTW, is Hoyt Wilhelm.
Between the trick pitch, the saves thing, and the oddity-filled career, I
never hear anyone talking about him as a seriously great pitcher. I bet
if ESPN ran a "greatest reliever" poll, Sutter, Smith, and Eck would
destroy him.
JHB
David Marc Nieporent
<zene...@wwa.com> claimed:
>> : George Sisler. Or Bill Terry, if he's even HOF-deserving.
>> I'm prohibited by my belief system from disagreeing with Terry's
>> immortality.
>???? This fairly demands an explanation...
That's easy. Terry was a Giant.
David Marc Nieporent
Bob-Nob <rpma...@unix.amherst.edu> claimed:
>Michael Noschese venit, vidit, et dixit:
>> Samson wrote:
>>> In article <7g3991$rb6$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>, "Ben Flieger"
>>> > >RF: Gwynn (or Clemente)
>>> > >CF: Dimaggio
>>> > >LF: ???
>>> > Does Lou Brock count?
>>> Sure, but I'll go with Carl Yastrzemski.
>> Gwynn, DiMaggio, Yaz
> Frankly, if Lou Brock counts by virtue of his making the Hall
>of Fame, then Joe Carter should be the third outfielder. Some people
>here may not want to acknowledge it, but Joe Carter is going to make
>the Hall of Fame. Joe Carter is Jim Rice, but more consistent and
>better in the clutch (to the average fan). You might as well reconcile
>yourself to it now (or start your anti-Carter campaigning now).
> *sigh* Catch you later.
Carter won't make it. His career stats aren't close to established HOF
levels, he never won any awards, and didn't lead the league in stuff
(_one_ RBI title, at the beginning of his career). Moreover, his stats
compared to his contemporaries look worse and worse. 396 HRs aren't much
of an argument *now*, and by the time he's eligible, it won't look
impressive at all. Outfielders who hit .259 don't make the Hall.
The only thing in his favor is that HR, but it didn't seem to help Maz.
Samson
Ivan Weiss <iv...@blaze.accessone.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Apr 1999, Jay wrote:
>
> > Samson wrote:
> >
> > > > >3B: Brooks Robinson
> > > > >C: ???
> > > >
> > > > Yogi Berra. Far and away Berra.
> > >
> > > MVP Awards:
> > >
> > > Berra: 3, Piazza: 0.
> > >
> > > Definitely Berra.
> > >
> >
> > Why would you say that Berra was overrated?
>
> For the same reasons he thinks Jackie Robinson is overrated:
> a) he never saw either of them play
> b) he doesn't think it is important to have seen them play
> c) he won't believe anyone who saw them play
> d) he doesn't know what he's talking about
> e) all of the above
Then of course there's (f), which is kind of long, but to
summarize: 'Overrated' is not the same as 'bad', nor is it
the same as 'not great'.
Was Jackie Robinson better than Eddie Collins or Charlie
Gehringer? Maybe. Maybe not. It's not as though he was
out of their league, though, and yet his number has been
retired in every stadium in baseball. That's 'overrated.'
Was Yogi Berra better than Gabby Hartnett? Again, it may
be too close to call, but ask the average baseball fan
what position each played, what team they played for, or
if they've even heard the name 'Gabby Hartnett', and
most will know much more about Berra than Hartnett. That's
'overrated.'
Anyway, both Berra and Robinson were involved in the most
overplayed bad call by an umpire, in which I *have* seen them
play (for a moment). Sorry, but Jackie was out by a mile.
Dale J. Stephenson
s...@sch.tiac.net.move.sch.to.front.of.at (Samson) wrote:
[...]
>
> Just to throw out another list, here's the almighty Dale
> Stephenson Peak List for prominent RFs through 1997:
>
> Peaks for Prominent Right Fielders
>
> Key to stats:
> Peak -- total BR/A + SBR for the best (offensively) five years of
> the player. Years are not necessarily consecutive.
> Outside -- total BR/A + SBR outside the best five years
> Decade -- decade in which most of the player's peak falls.
> Yrs -- Number of seasons at this position with 300+ plate
> appearances. Second number (if any) is seasons with 300+ PA
> at other positions.
> FR -- Career fielding runs at position, as estimated by Total Baseball III.
> -- DA-based fielding runs substituted for 88-95
> BR/A -- park adjusted linear weight batting runs, calculated by TBIII.
> SBR -- stolen base runs. (SB*0.3 - CS*0.6). Not calculated for
> years w/out stolen base totals.
>
>
I've been busily updating the lists, changing the "Peak" and "Outside"
to wins instead of runs (not using TB's RPW, but the more accurate
version posted by Roger Moore, I think.) I'm not done yet, but here's
the rightfielders I *have* done. Numbers are through 1998, using TB IV
and their website for BR/A. (Clemente's the only missing person
who will likely be in the top ten, with Dwight Evans, Rocky Colavito,
Bobby Bonds, and Dave Parker likely to break twenty wins for their
peak. Andre Dawson is way down the list.) By the way, the + in the
Notes column indicates HOF eligibility.
Name Peak Decade Outside Years FR Notes [HOF is *]
Babe Ruth 49.4 20s 77.5 14+3@r 6 * (3 Yrs@P)
Hank Aaron 35.7 60s 68.6 17+6 101 *
Reggie Jackson 32.3 70s 25.0 15+5 8 *
Frank Robinson 32.2 60s 52.0 11+8 69 *
Mel Ott 30.2 30s 48.1 15+3 -10 *
Harry Heilmann 26.7 20s 21.8 13+2@1 -49 *
Tony Gwynn 24.1 90s 22.1 16 123 Active +
Elmer Flick 24.0 1900s 14.3 9+1@c 24 * Vet. Comm.
Ken Singleton 23.9 70s 12.2 9+5 -51
Chuck Klein 23.3 30s 5.3 10+2@l 15 * Vet. Comm.
Al Kaline 23.0 60s 29.7 17+4 106 *
Dave Winfield 22.8 80s 25.7 13+7 2 '01 Ballot +
Sam Crawford 22.7 1900s 31.3 14+3@c -49 * Vet. Comm.
Paul Waner 22.4 30s 23.6 16 40 *
D. Strawberry 21.5 80s 9.7 9 15 Active +
Babe Herman 20.5 30s 10.0 7+4 -56 +
Jose Canseco 20.2 90s 8.5 6+5@d 2 Active +
Larry Walker 17.7 90s 4.2 9 42 Active +
Mike Tiernan 16.8 1890s 8.8 12 -92 +
Sam Thompson 16.7 1890s 9.9 10 52 * Vet. Comm.
Juan Gonzalez 15.5 90s 2.2 8 -6 Active +
Tim Salmon 14.8 90s 0.8 6 78 Active
David Justice 12.9 90s 4.5 8 32 Active +
My take -- Tony Gwynn is the best rightfielder since Reggie Jackson.
Yes, I'd take him over Winfield. When I first put the peak lists
together after the '92 season, Gwynn was widely considered to be one
of the best players in baseball and wasn't. But since that time
he's added a lot of power to go with his high batting averages, and
has increased his value (and peak value) a *lot*. Overrated? Maybe.
He's not in the league of Barry Bonds, but who is? He's an all time
great.
--
Dale J. Stephenson * djs...@sirius.com * past his prime
"I know nothing, Colonel Turner, nothing."
-- Sgt. Schuerholz
Dale J. Stephenson
<zene...@wwa.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Alan & Erin Williams wrote:
> > dke...@best.com wrote:
> >>
> >> [on Ralph Kiner:]
> >> He's extremely underrated in all non-sabermetric circles.
> >
> > I think he's somewhat underestimated everywhere. For a five to seven
> > year stretch he posted numbers that are in very rarefied territory.
>
> He's not underrated here. A while back he was put forward as a possible
> VHOF candidate...I had to respond to point out that if we give him
> *generous* credit for time lost to the war his career looks about like
> Sisler's, and has less career value than (take a DEEP breath...) Frisch,
> Bob Johnson, Dahlen, Jesse Burkett, Billy Herman, Fred Clarke, Joe Gordon,
> Sherry Magee, among others. I'd say when Kiner's rep is compared to these
> players, he's quite overrated indeed.
>
Sure, for career value. For peak value, Kiner's a top ten player, and
none of the rest of those guys are. Burkett's the closest, and he's not
close.
> Usually statheads take a dim view of players with short careers who are
> considered greats based on short peaks. Not sure why Kiner shouldn't get
> the same treatment...
>
Only when the player in question is Sandy Koufax :->. I doubt anyone
here would get riled about Koufax if he had Kiner-like respect. Instead,
Koufax is bandied about as the greatest ever. When there are players
around with *better* peaks and longer careers, that raises a few hackles.
No one goes around claiming that Kiner is better than Stan Musial.
> It may be Kiner doesn't belong on the list 'cos his general rep is no
> longer all that high. But when a guy with less career value than Sherry
> freaking Magee was making "10 Most Feared Hitters" lists, he would have
> qualified then.
>
For a feared hitter list, I would think peak value would be more relevant.
I don't think Sherry Magee would make a top ten list from his era, but
who from the 40s and 50s is a more dangerous hitter than Kiner? Ted
Williams, Stan Musial, and... Joe DiMaggio, maybe. That's an awfully
short list.
Cameron Laird
Dale J. Stephenson <djs...@sirius.com> wrote:
.
.
.
>I've been busily updating the lists, changing the "Peak" and "Outside"
>to wins instead of runs (not using TB's RPW, but the more accurate
>version posted by Roger Moore, I think.) I'm not done yet, but here's
The unit change makes the FR column now incommensurable
with PEAK and CAREER. Maybe some see that as an advan-
tage.
>the rightfielders I *have* done. Numbers are through 1998, using TB IV
>and their website for BR/A. (Clemente's the only missing person
>who will likely be in the top ten, with Dwight Evans, Rocky Colavito,
>Bobby Bonds, and Dave Parker likely to break twenty wins for their
>peak. Andre Dawson is way down the list.) By the way, the + in the
>Notes column indicates HOF eligibility.
>
>Name Peak Decade Outside Years FR Notes [HOF is *]
>Babe Ruth 49.4 20s 77.5 14+3@r 6 * (3 Yrs@P)
>Hank Aaron 35.7 60s 68.6 17+6 101 *
>Reggie Jackson 32.3 70s 25.0 15+5 8 *
>Frank Robinson 32.2 60s 52.0 11+8 69 *
>Mel Ott 30.2 30s 48.1 15+3 -10 *
>Harry Heilmann 26.7 20s 21.8 13+2@1 -49 *
>Tony Gwynn 24.1 90s 22.1 16 123 Active +
>Elmer Flick 24.0 1900s 14.3 9+1@c 24 * Vet. Comm.
>Ken Singleton 23.9 70s 12.2 9+5 -51
Somehow it's amusing me no end this morning that
Ken Singleton (!) had a peak above those of Kaline,
Winfield, ... Was he mostly at first the other
five years?
.
.
.