most overrated player and pitcher

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

There is one HUGE problem with taking the word of peers as to who the greatest ever is. All they have to reference is who they actually faced/saw. Ask a kid today who the greatest pitcher is and you probably get Randy Johnson, Clemens or Pedro and even some votes for Dontrell Willis. Does this also make them among the greatest ever? No!

the reason people think Koufax is overrated is because people like you, Jeff, seem to just dismiss the first 6 years of his career as if they never happened. When talking about greatness, you can't. They happened and nothing you do or say will mitigate the fact that Koufax sucked for the first 6 years of career.

Jim Rice was the most feared hitting the game in the late 70s and early 80s. More so than Schmidt, Brett and other hitter that are acknowledged as being great. Yet you never hear his name brought in conversations of greatest hitters. You know why? He didn't sustain his greatness for very long. But sustained it for a lot longer than Koufac did. So why isn't Rice mentioned among the greatest hitters ever. As kid growing up, no one wanted to face him the way peole don't want to face Bonds today.

So until someone can adequately explain how a pitcher can be sub .500 for more than half their career, still be considered great. I will always consider Koufax overrated.

True greatness is long term proposition.

Bob, great point about Oliva. I can't believe I forgot about him when he was my favorite player as a kid.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Jay, I appreciate the Rice comparison as I grew up a baseball fan in the 70s. However, Rice, while a great player of his era, only had 40 HRs or more 1 year in his career. He had some fantastic years but not on the level that Koufax did during his hot period. Rice never led the league in hitting, never won a Triple Crown, etc. Close comparison but not that close in my opinion. That being said, I have a hard time understanding why Billy Williams belongs in the HOF and not Rice.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Jeff, once again, you dodged the crucial question, how does a pitcher that is sub .500 for the first 7 years of his career warrant being considered one of the greatest of all-time?

As to your Rice knocks. The comparing of the hitting Triple Crown to the pitching Triple Crown is like comparing apples and oranges. I think between Johnson, Koufax and Matty they had more Triple crowns than all the hitting Triple Crowns combined. Also, knocking Rice for hitting 40+ HRs only once is also an invalid argument since 40 HRs wasn't done that often when he played and winning the HR title with less than 40 was standard. From 1975-88 only 13 of a possible 28 league leaders hit 40 or more HR in a season. 4 of those 13 were in 1986-8 when Rice's skills were already rapidly deteriorating and the juicing of the ball and other things started.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Jay,

The first six years of Koufax's career when he was a sub-500 pitcher comprised a total of 689 innings. I think we can agree that being used a bit more than 100 innings a year for a guy who threw 311 or more innings three times in his career suggests something was amiss in how he was handled. That being said: Randy Johnson, before he became Randy Johnson that we know, pitched five years and 816 innings. I'm sure there are other great pitchers with similar starts. Tom Glavine, a borderline HOF pitcher who will certainly make it if he wins 300, pitched 645 innings before he became "Tom Glavine." Before he became a .500 pitcher, he needed to pitch 891 innings. Of course, the Braves sucked during Glavine's rough period but so did his ERA. I'm not suggesting Glavine is even in Koufax's neighborhood, just trying to make a point with a pitcher that is very likely HOF-bound. I think, as I stated previously, our difference lies in what we define "greatness" to be. I think that while greatness can be acheived over time, the truly greatest of all time period that Koufax had just overwhelmes anything else in his career. You'll clearly never get me to say that Koufax's career numbers are "great." But that doesn't stop me from claiming that he is one of the greatest pitchers to ever live.

Jeff

P.S. And how does Billy Williams make the HOF and not Rice?

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Mishandled or not, he should have still been winning games with those great Dodgers teams of the late 50s.

No clue on the Billy Williams thing other than Williams was liked by the media and Rice wasn't. Sadly, that has a lot to do with HOF voting. I personally think Rice belongs. He was the most feared hitter in the game for over 5 years, but is penalized for being disliked by the media and not having a long enough career. He was a better hitter and player than Puckett, but Puckett got in becuase of his ability and the fact that he was a media darling and lead the Twins to 2 WS titles.

At least don't have to worry about Canseco getting in this way, but we do with McGwire.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

The irony of course is that Rice never cared how he was perceived and Kirby was all about being media-savvy -- and it ends up that he was probably a much worse guy than Rice was.

When I think of the 70s, I think of Jim Rice, Steve Garvey, guys like that. It doesn't seem fair to penalize guys like this who were consistently at the very top of their era just because they weren't around during the juiced ball times. To be fair, a HOF player should be judged on how they performed relative to their peers during their playing career. At least with Rice, both he and Williams had lifetime slugging percentages that were about 100 points higher than the average player in the league during their respective eras. Puckett's was .67 higher....

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Jay,
I agree with you about Rice and Puckett, but what about Mattingly? His 84-89 is probably comparable to Koufax's run. Mattingly was routinely voted best player by his peers for several years in a row, but his back kept him from dominating long enough for the HOF. He was my favorite player during the 80's and I miss seeing him play. Be well Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

that is one of, if not the, WORST song I ever read (and heard, putting
God Bless America"s tune to it!

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Donaldson

Jay,

Greatness is greatness. Sometimes it is delayed. Look at the first 5 years of home runs for this player; 0, 4, 3, 2, 11. When he retired he was universally acknowledged as the greatest slugger ever. Guy by the name of Babe Ruth.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Bob, get real. We all know Ruth wasn't playing the OF full time and given the era, the HR totals aren't out of line. At least try to be a bit more creative and realistic in your comparisons. As full time Of, Ruth had sustained greatness. Even as a pitcher he had sustained greatness. This is why he is considered the greatest player ever.

Mattingly certainly had a great run. I am truly surprised by the apathy shown towards his HOF candidacy given all the hype he got as a player. I fully expected him to get elected just because he was a Yankee. Glad to see the voters wising up a bit.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: H Murphy

Don`t chime in on too many posts, but I have to defend my all-time fav. player, Harmon Killebrew. He was never a gold glover, but when he retired he had 573 Hr`s when 400 was an auto HOF #. The total was just the start. A 6 time HR champ, 40+ eight times when 40 ACTUALLY meant somrthing! 100 RBI 9 times and I believe when he retired his HR to AB ratio was second to some guy named Ruth. All done with style and grace matched by too few players over the last 30 years. Overrated, I think not.

[Archive]

Posted By: Zach

I have to agree...Killebrew is very underrated. As for pitchers I think Warren Spahn is also very underrated as well.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I grew up watching Killebrew, Carew and Oliva. Killer was a great HR hitter. I'll also give him credit for being able to play more than one position in his career. But he was still essentially a one trick pony, like McGwire. He hit HRs and that's just about all he did. Carew was the opposite, all average and speed, no power. Combine Killer and Carew and you get Tony Oliva. A beautiful blend of power, speed and average.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Well, the Killer did his damage in an era when HRs were not hit at the rate they were when McGwire hit his. Also, he didn't have the advantage of being a drug-taking freak.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

i don't remember who said it, but if you look at the names on this thread it sure is true. "you got to be awfully good to be considered overrated."

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

It is difficult to convincingly argue that a player who is very good, is actually overrated. Perhaps it is easier to identify a player who is crummy that shouldn't be in MLB at all.

One of the most evident players of this caliber is Bill Bergen, .170 lifetime battiung average. How did he get 3000+ at bats in the big leagues? It wasn't his slugging ( .201 SA ).

Maybe he is the most overrated.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

If a player is very good according to his stats, but people treat him as if he's excellent, then he is over-rated. Sometimes this happens with players who were especially popular for reasons other than their actual performance.

Same for "under-rated" - many times a player quietly does the job and doesn't receive the respect he deserves because he isn't flashy.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Well Scott, I will try to clearly explain my thinking. But, I may miss because my thinking is not always clearly explainable.

Here goes: It is comparitively easier to establish the rating of a player relative to other players, than it is to quantify what others think of him.

By this I mean that I can state accurately that Mark McGuire hit homeruns at a rate higher than any other MLB player in history. But I can not accurately determine what conclusions are drawn from this fact by fans, sportscasters, stat-nuts, nor others.

However, if I note that Bergen does not hit as well as many pitchers (who earn their keep by means other than hitting); and then determine that Bergen was good in an "other than hitting" capacity; I can then attempt to establish the relative merit of Bergen's non-hitting capabilities and conclude whether they justify being considered for a major league position.

I hope that helps

Edited to add:

I think Mantle is simply a very popular player. I further think that most appraise his performance accurately.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

<<...But I can not accurately determine what conclusions are drawn from this fact by fans, sportscasters, stat-nuts, nor others.>>

I'll buy that. It's much easier when you lived through the same era as the player in question. I know that Mantle was almost a god during the '60s when I was growing up, but I also feel that his stats and value to the Yankees seemed to justify his popularity.

Another thing to consider is the emphasis that certain generations put on the skills of their ball-players. For instance, if you went back and read interviews and newspapers from the early 1900's you might think that Jimmy Archer was over-rated compared to the stats we view today. But at that time fielding the catcher's position was considered much more important than it is today, and Archer was considered one of (if not the) best catchers of his generation.

(edited to add)

Bill Bergen must have been able to stop lightning bolts.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Scott: what I should have said (but didn't) was that in analyzing a player like Bergen both the players actual performance and the minimum acceptable levels of performance (identified as the other Mendoza line players - who hit > .030 points higher) are established, and measureable.

Since both are identifyable, if the stats do not indicate that he performs at major league levels, while accumulating > 3000 at bats, then he is overrated by a measurable amount.

No other player is overrated by a measureable amount.

Based on the reading which I have done on Bergen, he was good, but not a top tier catcher. But then again, his team did not have much of anything. He certainly could not catch lightening bolts.

The measureable amount that I contend that Bergen is overrated at is the 0.030 or so, batting average points difference between him and other good field/light hit players.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

"over-rated" and "under-rated" can't be measured using stats as you just tried to do - it's simply not what these two terms mean ("evaluated too low" and "evaluated too high").

You can make such measurements if you want, of course, and I'm sure they have value, but you'll have to define the results using different terms (perhaps "above average" and "below average" would do).

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Mayer

Bonds or Sosa and Schilling

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

To me Scott, if a player is accepted into the major leagues by his team (for an extended period), eventhough his performance is below major league standards; then he is overrated by his team.

This is "evaluated too high".

And the amount that he is evaluated too high is the difference between the level of his play and the next worst performer.

In Bergen's case, that difference is substantial.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

I think you know what the post wss about.