Quote:
Originally Posted by Balticfox
How could anyone think Lou Brock was overrated? He was the MVP of the 1967 World Series and won both the Baseball Digest Player of the Year Award and the Sporting News Player of the Year Award in 1974. He hit .304 at the age of forty and had a lifetime batting average of .293.
Was he that bad a fielder or something?
 |
I never saw him play in person, but analytics don't like him very much. For a non-power guy and leadoff hitter, he had a very respectable batting average, but he struck out waaaay more then he walked.
For perspective he struck out more then Rickey Henderson in about 2100 less plate appearances, while walking almost 1500 less times.
Defensive metrics kind of hate him to. His range factor was very good for most of the 60's, but he either led the league in outfield errors, or was near the top in almost every year he played the outfield. Errors aren't the end all be all when it comes to Outfield play, so I'm guessing he had a weaker arm and extra bases were taken on him, on a regular basis.
Rickey wasn't a great outfielder either, at least from the eye test, but the metrics there favor him much much better, then Lou Brock, and they both played the majority of their careers in Left Field...so there isn't a Center Fielder bias working for either player.
That said, I think Lou Brock is a player you would have loved to have had on your team, one way or another. Whether you think he might have been over-rated, under-rated, or just right.