Most overrated baseball superstar ever?

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by rats60

OPS+ is a worthless stat to compare different players from different eras. No one is taking .298/.421/.557/.977 over .325/.398/.579/.977. It also doesn't adjust for park even though it claims to. Proof that Mantle is overrated. He might be top 20-25, but no where close to 7th.

He might be top 20-25?



You're so obtuse, it's comical.

I ran a report for all position players in the modern era (from 1919 forward), sorted by WAR. Minimum 2,000 games played. 201 players in total. Mickey Mantle is 11th all-time in WAR for modern era position players.

But hold on. I exported the workbook that Baseball Reference's index tool created, and imported it into Microsoft Excel. I then eliminated all data but WAR, and games played. I then created a simple formula to compute the rate (# of games played per WAR) for all those players.

These are the big boys. The position players that have created the most value (WAR) of all modern era players.

Mickey Mantle has the 6th-best rate of WAR of the 201 players with over 2,000 games played in the modern era. He's behind only Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, Ted Williams, Lou Gehrig and Willie Mays.

First column ranks rate of WAR. Second column ranks total WAR


Mantle played in 2,401 games, and generated 110.2 WAR. 2,401 games is 14.82098765432099 162 game seasons. Per 162 games played, he averaged 7.44 WAR. An MVP season is 8 WAR. His average season was MVP caliber.

And his peak? His peak is ridiculous. From 1952, when he was 20 years old, through the 1962 season, when he turned 30, he played 1,579 games and amassed 89.2 bWAR. 1,579 games played is 9.746913580246914 162 game seasons. That means during his 11 year peak, he averaged 9.75 WAR per 162 games played.

So please, for the love of God--stop embarrassing yourself, man.

Mickey Mantle is inarguably one of the ten best offensive players of the modern era, and one of the truly elite players in baseball history. End of discussion.

[the 'stache]

Oh, and by the way, let's look just at the players in the game, in their primes, at the same time Mantle was. A 11 year period from 1954 to 1964.

During this period:
Mickey Mantle was between age 22-32
Willie Mays 23-33
Frank Robinson 20-28
Hank Aaron 20-30
Duke Snider 27-37
Stan Musial 33-42
Eddie Mathews 22-32
Orlando Cepeda 20-26
Rocky Colaviro 21-30
Al Kaline 19-29
Ernie Banks 23-33
Joe Adcock 26-36
Roger Maris 22-29
Jackie Jensen 27-34
Roy Sievers 27-37
Gil Hodges 30-39

Here's a link to the spreadsheet. While their ages don't perfectly line up, it's pretty close for some of the greatest hitters in the history of the game. Besides Mantle, Mays is in his prime. Aaron is in his prime. This includes several of Frank Robinson's prime years. All of Eddie Mathew's prime. Al Kaline's Prime. Ernie Banks' prime. A good chunk of Orlando Cepeda's prime. Even Stan Musial, playing into his early 40s, is still a force to be reckoned with for this decade, though his later years will have dropped his averages.

You get the point.

Look at Mantle, against some of the best the game has ever produced, at the same times of their careers. He tops them all. Nobody in the Majors combined Mantle's power and on base ability. And you'll notice, Mantle was a .312 hitter. His career average only dropped when his knees gave out, and he couldn't run anymore. In his prime, he was literally unstoppable.



Just stop with this 20-25 BS.

[earlywynnfan]

I think the 'stache just did a mike-drop, if that's still a thing!

[ClementeFanOh]

I think "the 'stache" needs to switch to decaf... If ANY of you would go out of your way to watch Bryce Harper play a game, other than the "stache"- pay just to watch Harper, that is- signify by saying aye, please...
Stache- it sounds very much like I (and others who don't much care for Bryce) struck a nerve because you "like" him as a player. That's fine, you can favor anyone you like. The question at hand is "overrated" player, however, and I stand by my comments all day long. You carried on about him at length, like he is part of the Second Coming, and my response is "meh". He could well be on the ARod track, meaning the teams he leaves somehow become better for it. Is he a "good" player? Yes, but nothing more. Time will tell...
So, since the term "overrated" clearly connotes opinion on the part of the individual, I'll stick with my original picks. In the end, anyone who is how own biggest fan is likely "overrated", yes?
Does this count as a mic drop?

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

I think "the 'stache" needs to switch to decaf... If ANY of you would go out of your way to watch Bryce Harper play a game, other than the "stache"- pay just to watch Harper, that is- signify by saying aye, please...
Stache- it sounds very much like I (and others who don't much care for Bryce) struck a nerve because you "like" him as a player. That's fine, you can favor anyone you like. The question at hand is "overrated" player, however, and I stand by my comments all day long. You carried on about him at length, like he is part of the Second Coming, and my response is "meh". He could well be on the ARod track, meaning the teams he leaves somehow become better for it. Is he a "good" player? Yes, but nothing more. Time will tell...
So, since the term "overrated" clearly connotes opinion on the part of the individual, I'll stick with my original picks. In the end, anyone who is how own biggest fan is likely "overrated", yes?
Does this count as a mic drop?

FWIW, I was talking about his Mantle argument.

[ClementeFanOh]

Hi Early- ah, I see. No questions Mantle was awesome. Harper? Not so much.

[Wrightfan85]

If anything, Mantle might be underrated. If he doesn't hurt himself in ST his rookie year...he may have been the best ever,

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

I think "the 'stache" needs to switch to decaf... If ANY of you would go out of your way to watch Bryce Harper play a game, other than the "stache"- pay just to watch Harper, that is- signify by saying aye, please...
Stache- it sounds very much like I (and others who don't much care for Bryce) struck a nerve because you "like" him as a player. That's fine, you can favor anyone you like. The question at hand is "overrated" player, however, and I stand by my comments all day long. You carried on about him at length, like he is part of the Second Coming, and my response is "meh". He could well be on the ARod track, meaning the teams he leaves somehow become better for it. Is he a "good" player? Yes, but nothing more. Time will tell...
So, since the term "overrated" clearly connotes opinion on the part of the individual, I'll stick with my original picks. In the end, anyone who is how own biggest fan is likely "overrated", yes?
Does this count as a mic drop?

First of all, please stop with the condescending attitude. I don't need to switch anything. And I didn't need you to explain what overrated means. I'm not a child whose hand you need to hold.

Secondly, I didn't "carry on about him like he was part of the second coming". I took the time to provide factual evidence to disprove your absurd conclusion, where you relied on conjecture, and nothing more. Had you left at it "I feel he is overrated", fine. That is mere opinion, and one I have no issue with. But then you started tossing out reasons for your thinking so, reasons that had absolutely no basis in reality, whatsoever. And when you do so, you leave yourself open to rebuke.

First, trying to prove that his leaving the Nationals had anything at all to do with them winning the World Series, is plain silly. It is coincidence. You think the Nationals would have traded him if they could have afforded him? It's not the first time a team lets a star get away because of money, and it won't be the last.

Second, the rest of your post was complete fiction. You admitted that you didn't follow him that much, but assumed that he hit empty home runs (demonstrably false), and his teams "wallowed"; again, easily demonstrated to be inaccurate.

Furthermore, where did I say I would pay money just to watch him play? Another assumption. I don't even like Harper. I think he's an immature ass that needs to grow up. But to opine that he's not an elite talent is simply foolish. Or, do you think teams like the Phillies just give out $27 million a year to merely "good" players?

In the five years he's played since age 22, when some players are first starting to come to the Majors, he's had one historic MVP season, and another MVP caliber season cut short by injury:

In 2017, he hit .319, scored 95 runs, with 27 doubles, 29 home runs, 87 RBI, and slashed .413/.595/1.008, 250 total bases. In 111 games played. Take those numbers out to 158 games played, his average of the 159 games played in 2018 and in 17 in 2019, and this is where he ends up:

.319 AVG, 135 runs, 38 doubles, 41 home runs, 124 RBI, 356 total bases. 156 OPS+

So, he's the unanimous National League MVP in 2015. He finished 12th in the MVP in 2017, even though he missed 51 games, nearly a third of the season. Since the Nats went on to win 97 games in 2017, there's a very good chance a healthy Harper wins his second MVP in three years.

And that's merely "good"? Two MVP seasons before age 25?

His OPS+ In 2015 was 198.

Since 1919 (minimum 500 AB), there have been a grand total of 27 better individual seasons than Harper's 198 OPS+.

Here's the report on Baseball-Reference.

8 were by Babe Ruth
3 were by Lou Gehrig
3 were by Ted Williams
3 were by Rogers Hornsby
2 were by Jimmie Foxx
2 were by Mickey Mantle
1 each by Frank Robinson, Stan Musial, Barry Bonds, Dick Allen, Norm Cash, Mark McGwire, Jason Giambi and Sammy Sosa.

Not bad for a "good" player, huh?

He had a drop off in performance in 2018, but that can be attributed to his recovering from his knee injury. He hyperextended it in August of 2017, and was able to return at the end of the season. But he struggled mightily, which isn't surprising given the injury. In 5 games before the end of the season, he hit .167 (5 for 18), and in the playoffs, .211 (4 for 19).

At the 2018 All Star break (July 17), through 94 games, he was hitting .214 and slashing .365/.468/.833. He'd struck out 102 times in 327 at bats. He did have 23 home runs, though. He clearly wasn't all the way back.

After the break, he did much better.

.300 AVG, 65 games, 46 runs, 11 HR, 46 RBI, 52 walks, 67 Ks, slash line .434/.538/.972.

His post All Star break numbers, taken to a full 162 game season, are MVP caliber:

.300 AVG, 115 runs, 50 doubles, 27 home runs, 115 RBI, 130 walks.

In an "off" 2018, he still hit 34 home runs, drove in 100, and led baseball with 130 walks.

In 2019, he hit 35 home runs, walked 99 times, and drove in a career high 114 runs.

So....

In 2015 unanimous National League MVP
2016 down season
2017 MVP front runner when he hurt his knee, hitting .326 slashing .419/.614/1.034.
2018 first half way below average after returning from injury, MVP second half
2019 All Star caliber season

You can stand by your comments. But when your statement is based purely in fantasy, don't take umbrage when somebody exposes your opinion as a dumb one. Even after I've produced indisputable evidence that Harper is, indeed, and elite offensive player, your only response is "meh", and, "I'll stick by my original opinion".

It's too bad that you're the kind of person that, when presented with facts, decides to stubbornly adhere to your original comment. Even after you admitted that you "really didn't pay attention" to him. That's okay, though. I know not to put any credence in anything you say about the game again.

[packs]

Overrated means public perception is that the player is better than they really are. Nothing you pointed out about Harper screams 300 million dollars to me. He is always going to be lumped in with Trout but he isn't Trout.

I think the MVP was Stanton's in 2017 no matter what Harper did. That was a monster year.

The Phillies were 2 games below .500 without Harper and then paid him 300 million to win one extra game. That makes him overrated in my book. He had no effect on his team despite being billed as its savior.

[ClementeFanOh]

Stache- my final word on you:
First, as other commenters so astutely observed, you don't like it that I treated YOU, the way you treated others prior to my opinion on Harper. Frankly, it's fun to toy with clowns like you- you know, the kind who quote stats but couldn't play, and simply cannot believe it when someone doesn't bow to your stat prowess. (In other words, you may have been had by this "dumb" commenter, hoss…)
Finally, you will NOT change my mind on Harper- especially after referring to him as "erratic" yourself. Harper is a talented player who has been, to this point, forgettable- despite that talent, despite the notoriety, despite his ego- just a guy who provides stat geeks with caffeine fueled rage when someone doubts their paper conclusions. It's been 8 seasons and nobody cares about Bryce Harper but Harper himself- and you. Again, when you are the "stud" who leaves a team, and that team IMMEDIATELY wins the Series, the word "overrated" clearly is in play. Keep trying though- with another commenter- because "I know not to put any credence in anything you say about the game again".
Thanks nolemmings, packs, howard38, cardsagain74- you called it correctly, and better, than I did.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

I think "the 'stache" needs to switch to decaf... If ANY of you would go out of your way to watch Bryce Harper play a game, other than the "stache"- pay just to watch Harper, that is- signify by saying aye, please...
Stache- it sounds very much like I (and others who don't much care for Bryce) struck a nerve because you "like" him as a player. That's fine, you can favor anyone you like. The question at hand is "overrated" player, however, and I stand by my comments all day long. You carried on about him at length, like he is part of the Second Coming, and my response is "meh". He could well be on the ARod track, meaning the teams he leaves somehow become better for it. Is he a "good" player? Yes, but nothing more. Time will tell...
So, since the term "overrated" clearly connotes opinion on the part of the individual, I'll stick with my original picks. In the end, anyone who is how own biggest fan is likely "overrated", yes?
Does this count as a mic drop?

Uhh this is literally the opposite of a mic drop

[packs]

I don't really understand how anyone can have a different opinion on Harper. The Phillies went 80-82 in 2018. They spent 300 million dollars on one player to go 81-81 in 2019.

What makes that player properly valued?

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't really understand how anyone can have a different opinion on Harper. The Phillies went 80-82 in 2018. They spent 300 million dollars on one player to go 81-81 in 2019.

What makes that player properly valued?

OK, but where was his former team without him? Oh yeah, World Series champs.

[mcgwirecom]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't really understand how anyone can have a different opinion on Harper. The Phillies went 80-82 in 2018. They spent 300 million dollars on one player to go 81-81 in 2019.

What makes that player properly valued?

How are the Angels doing with Trout (and Pujols)?


Also someone mentioned the Nats winning the WS after losing Harper. How about the 2001 Mariners? They got rid of Griffey, Randy Johnson, Arod then went on to win more games than anyone ever.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

He might be top 20-25?



You're so obtuse, it's comical.

I ran a report for all position players in the modern era (from 1919 forward), sorted by WAR. Minimum 2,000 games played. 201 players in total. Mickey Mantle is 11th all-time in WAR for modern era position players.

But hold on. I exported the workbook that Baseball Reference's index tool created, and imported it into Microsoft Excel. I then eliminated all data but WAR, and games played. I then created a simple formula to compute the rate (# of games played per WAR) for all those players.

These are the big boys. The position players that have created the most value (WAR) of all modern era players.

Mickey Mantle has the 6th-best rate of WAR of the 201 players with over 2,000 games played in the modern era. He's behind only Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, Ted Williams, Lou Gehrig and Willie Mays.

First column ranks rate of WAR. Second column ranks total WAR


Mantle played in 2,401 games, and generated 110.2 WAR. 2,401 games is 14.82098765432099 162 game seasons. Per 162 games played, he averaged 7.44 WAR. An MVP season is 8 WAR. His average season was MVP caliber.

And his peak? His peak is ridiculous. From 1952, when he was 20 years old, through the 1962 season, when he turned 30, he played 1,579 games and amassed 89.2 bWAR. 1,579 games played is 9.746913580246914 162 game seasons. That means during his 11 year peak, he averaged 9.75 WAR per 162 games played.

So please, for the love of God--stop embarrassing yourself, man.

Mickey Mantle is inarguably one of the ten best offensive players of the modern era, and one of the truly elite players in baseball history. End of discussion.

LOL. WAR what is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Joe DiMaggio not even included in your list proves my point.

[clydepepper]

Bill- please don't ever actually 'drop the mic' - some of us thrive on your research!


.

[brewing]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

These are the big boys. The position players that have created the most value (WAR) of all modern era players.

First column ranks rate of WAR. Second column ranks total WAR

What I have always found amazing is the the lack of popularity of the Topps baseball cards of some of these guys on this list. Specifically, Musial, Robinson, and Mathews. Clearly some of the greatest hitters in the Topps era, yet their Topps cards (other than rookies) are priced ridiculously low compared to Mantle or Clemente.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by brewing

What I have always found amazing is the the lack of popularity of the Topps baseball cards of some of these guys on this list. Specifically, Musial, Robinson, and Mathews. Clearly some of the greatest hitters in the Topps era, yet their Topps cards (other than rookies) are priced ridiculously low compared to Mantle or Clemente.

That is why I say Mantle is by far the most over rated player. I have never said Mantle wasn't great. It is just that his cards are valued insanely compared to better players than him.