Unsung heroes
LandrysFedora
Posts: 2,153 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Who are some of your favorite supporting role players who often do the dirty work necessary for team success but often times are overlooked in favor of the superstars? One of mine is Bill Bates of the Cowboys. He was a special teams guy who also played safety and did those very well on some super dominant Cowboys teams headlined by many superstars during his time in Dallas.
1
Comments
Gene Tenace. He was a superstar, so technically he doesn't count, but he was unsung and overlooked. How a 4-time WS winner and 1-time WS MVP who is 13th on the All-time JAWS list at his position gets overlooked is a mystery, but it happened.
Bill "Boom-Boom" Brown running back for the Vikings. He was selected to 4 pro bowls, so he was not really a supporting player, but when he no longer could start at RB he became one of the best special team players in the league.
George Halas said trading Bill Brown was the biggest mistake he ever made!
"Yo, don't look any further into this statement."
"Favorite supporting role players"?
THE FANS....From mothers and fathers to sons and daughters and friends
I was a player and the energy produced by the true sportsman, was always a gritty reminder why they are present.
And with that energy felt, everything is possible for team success, above and beyond
One other tid-bit comes to mind. I always walked away having learned something new, at that game.
Vinnie "The Microwave" Johnson. He was the 6th man during the Pistons back to back Championships. They don't win them without "Instant Heat". He made all the plays and so many big shots with guys draped all over him. Unstoppable at times. Big stops on D as well
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Offensive linemen. They're down in the trenches, doing the filthy work!
Because he wasn't a superstar. You can make all the case you want for him being overlooked - and he was - but, during his time he wasn't considered a superstar. Guys who get 110 hits a year aren't considered superstars.
They weren't really overlooked at the time but...
Darren McCarty and Kris Draper for the Red Wings. Draper was a shutdown defender with an edge. McCarty was a physical presence who set the stage for the Cup runs by knocking out Claude Lemieux - and then scoring the game-winning goal in OT to beat Colorado.
But this just begs the question. At the time he retired, Tenace had the highest OPS+ of any catcher in history (since passed by Piazza). Every catcher above him on the JAWS list, and about an equal number below him, is in the HOF except Thurman Munson and Joe Mauer, both of whom are considered superstars.
No argument that Tenace isn't considered a superstar, but he was, and that's what makes him the most unsung hero.
My hero yesterday Daryl Williams. Recovered Josh Allen’s fumble late in the fourth quarter.
Justin Zimmer DT. Punched the ball loose from Cam Newton on what looked like a game winning drive to finally beat the Patriots.
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
unless you follow the patriots, you may not have heard of Matthew Slater. BB calls him the greatest special teamer ever.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Brian Piccolo.
That's a great answer. One of my childhood buddies dad was a football teammate of Piccolos at what is now known as St Thomas Aquinas High School in Ft Lauderdale.
Hard to describe him as unsung when they made a movie about him.
Dallas you can't honestly say you don't know how Gene Tenace was overlooked right?
When he retired his batting average was .241, that is how he got overlooked rightly or wrongly.
Back then a JAWS list was the list Roy Scheider kept of how many victims JAWS had killed.
And nobody had heard of OPS+ except maybe you and Bill James.
I'm not disputing your advanced metrics saying he was a great player, all I'm saying is surely you know
how he got overlooked because back then batting average was the main stat people looked at in judging a hitter.
I'll say Damien Williams of last year's Chiefs team.
He should have been Super Bowl MVP, and his late TD to clinch the win
was one of the best sports moments I've ever experienced.
Wish he hadn't opted out this year but I think he made that decision to try to protect his family
and I hope he is back next season with KC.
Of course I know why he was overlooked. But more importantly I know why he shouldn't have been, and why Gene Tenace is the patron saint of unsung heroes.
Isnt there a song too ? If there is a song he can hardly be unsung
That reminds me of the new word used by the FBI.
"The Unsub"
Off topic...Yes, but they could fall into this thread as maybe they should.
USA...USA...USA... ...
Bytheway, Spell check needs an up date.
If you have multiple seasons where your OBP is higher than your SLG - and your OBP isn't .550, you're not a superstar. His "above replacement" numbers look good because 1970s AL catching was nearly a barren wasteland. His OPS+ looks good because he walked a ton during a stretch when other offensive stats were down. Yeah, walking is great but, man, you're just not a superstar if your best offensive talent is NOT swinging the bat.
Tim Wakefield - Red Sox
Bobby Jones - 76ers
Butch Goring - Islanders
Mike Webster - Steelers
Matt Suhey - Bears
Paul O’Neill or Lou Pinella - Yankees
If you go to baseballegg.com, they do a decent job of listing the greatest catchers of all time. They correctly have Tenace at #16. He was a star, add super if you’d like, and was a key, or huge, ingredient to the As success. He was not a middle of the road catcher, or as the OP said, “unsung hero”. People sang the name of Gene Tenace back then, as the Topps card said “Tenace the Menace”. He was as pesky as Rose at the plate, as reliable as Bench behind the plate, but just didn’t have the high average. If he did have a higher average, he’d be in the top 10. He was that good.
Only 6 years with over 65 games caught. 6 years where he played more than 65 games at 1st base.
He was a GREAT walker, batting 9th, he would have had HUGE value! The problem with a "walker" with a low BA and fair power is where do you put him in the order?
Tenace batted #6 almost every year, right ahead of the worst two hitters and the pitcher in the batting order. His walks got wasted, so his biggest value to his team, OBP didn't translate into runs scored and help the team as much as it should.
Yeah, it's tough to treat a guy like a catcher when he had very few seasons as a full-time catcher. He had two seasons where he caught 100+ games. And a third with 99. 892 games caught over 15 seasons - not even 60 a year. And 328 came of those in 3 seasons. So 564 over his other 12 seasons.
If he was that good, why didn't he catch more? Why, if he was "as reliable as Bench behind the plate", in the year he played his most games at catcher, was he pulled for Ray Fosse late in games?
Bill Ring-49'ers
Fosse was a fine catcher and hitter. The A's could get them both in the lineup putting Tenace at first, and they could get Fosse's better defense in late innings using him as a sub. Note, as much as I love Tenace, I do not agree that he was as reliable as Bench behind the plate. He wasn't bad, but he was no Bench.
Of OBP and SLG, the one with the greater value is OBP. The chief flaw with OPS is that it values the two equally. Tenace batted in every spot in the order during his career and he walked at the same phenomenal rate no matter where his manager put him. To say that Tenace wasn't great because his managers put him in the 6 spot most often makes no sense. Tenace was who he was, and his inherent value does not depend on his teammates or his managers. Put him in the 4 spot in Fenway and put Rice in the 6 spot in Oakland and Tenace would be in the HOF and I'd be the one having to explain why Rice was better than people think he was.
As an aside, Tenace was the backup catcher for the Cardinals in 1982 and played in 60-some games and batted 100 some times. And there is NO WAY the Cardinals would have won the division, and therefore the WS, that year without him. I don't remember how often he hit in what spots in the order, nor do I care because it doesn't matter. Tenace was an OBP machine with very good power, and that wins games no matter where in the order he batted.
Fosse was a horrible hitter with Oakland. 85, 66, 10 for OPS+.
In the context of the A's trying to fill C and 1B, Fosse was a fine hitter when compared to the alternatives, of which there were none, especially in 1973 when he was the regular catcher. In 1974, they tried Haney at catcher more but he couldn't hit at all, so they stuck with Fosse as a semi-regular so they could keep Tenace in the lineup every day. In 1975 Fosse's hitting collapsed so they had Tenace catch almost every game.
The common thread was the A's desire to get as many games and at bats out of Tenace as possible. Had they found another catcher who could hit a lick, Tenace would have been used almost exclusively at 1B, but they couldn't. Fosse, at least for two years, was a good catcher and a good enough hitter; Haney was an excellent catcher, which is why he got a chance at all, but not a major league hitter.
This seems like an odd thing to say about a "superstar" catcher that you've ranked among the best of all-time.
If Tenace was so great, how come he caught so little?
Tenace batted in every spot in the order during his career and he walked at the same phenomenal rate no matter where his manager put him.
I looked up 1974,75, 77-80. He batted a very large portion of the time at the #6 spot and split the rest of his spots at #5 and #7, with VERY FEW at bats anywhere else.
He batted very well in 1979 when the Padres batted him #3. For those 106 PA, he was a stud!
His greatest accomplishment was walking, but batting 5-6-7 didn't translate to runs the way it would have had he batted 2nd or even 9th. Thus he wasn't as good as OPS+ says he was. OPS+ also rewards guys who play well in a part time or shortened season/career.
He was a nice player who I remember well when Oakland was playing the Twins. He was far from being a "superstar".
He was a really nice player who could catch and play 1B, could hit a few home runs and get on base very well. Not a very good defensive player.
Really a great walker!
If I ever so much as implied that Tenace was a great fielding catcher, then I made a mistake. But I don't think I did. Tenace was a good enough catcher and an offensive force. Players who can contribute to the offense as much as Tenace are rare (OPS+ 110th on the all-time list); those who can do that who are also capable of being "good enough" catchers are super rare (OPS+ 2nd all-time for catchers). Tenace is not the 2nd best catcher of all time, not even close. But he's better than quite a few catchers in the HOF, and lots more non-catchers, including Jim Rice (who didn't hit as well and couldn't play ANY position "good enough", let alone catcher).
All roads lead to Gene Tenace
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Well, yes, but you missed my point. It is not up to Tenace where in the order he bats. He was a stud batting 3rd for SD, and he was a stud no matter where he was in the order. If a manger puts him in the wrong spot on the order, that makes Tenace worse? Seriously? And Tenace's greatest accomplishment was getting on base, at a far greater rate than Ichiro. Why are Tenace's walks of any less value than Ichiro's Grandma Moses singles? They're not, so my question is why do you think they are?
And yes, Tenace's OPS+ is helped by his shorter career. But this is something that he shares in common with every single catcher who preceded him, every single catcher who played at the same time he did, and all but a handful of catchers who came after him. I, and everyone else who has ever ranked players, essentially ignore this on the assumption that catching and playing a shorter career go hand in hand. You can take the contrary position and downgrade his 110th position on the overall list, but it won't change his 2nd place position on the catchers list. Munson's career was all but over when he died, and Buster Posey's career is all but over as we speak. They both still rank quite well among catchers, though, as they should.
What's the criteria for being on the catcher list? He had less than 850 games where he hit as a catcher - and a ton of those weren't complete.
My favorite was Hank "The Howitzer" Bauer with the Chargers back in the 1980s. He was a running back, but mainly he was a special teams guy, and seemed to always be the one making the tackle on punts and kickoffs. He had absolutely no regard for his own health and safety, and just threw himself all over the field every game.
Steve
Do you equate walks with singles ?
Singles can score runners from second, and potentially move runners from first to third.
Walks can not.
Singles can potentially lead to fielding errors. Walks can not.
Because Fosse was as reliable as Bench also. No one had the arm of Bench. But Bench had no more agility behind the plate as Fosse or Tenace. All catchers from the 70s were slow base runners and above average fielders. Bench had an exceptional arm, but most other catchers were as reliable when it came to signal calling, blocking pitches, and tracking down foul balls.
Excep for his arm, there really isn’t much defensively between Bench and Bob Boone.
But that doesn't explain it. If Tenace and Fosse were equally reliable behind the plate - your words, not mine - why would you pull a guy who can hit for a guy who's the worst hitter in the majors? I mean, we're talking a guy with the 10th worst (10 in 1975) OPS+ from the 1970-2020 era.
Catchers have short careers.
They need innings off more than anyone.
No, OPS+ misses the point when it treats every player the same.
You are correct in the fact that he didn't choose where he batted, (I thought that was the same for all players). The point your ignoring is, that walks have much more value in certain spots in the lineup #6 would probably be the worst.
A slow running hitter that's best ability is the base on balls who bats in front of the worst three hitters on the team, is NOT the same as the guy who walks a lot, can run and has good hitters coming up behind him.
That's probably one of the reasons Tenace walked so much, he obviously came up with guys on base quite often, and could hit the ball out on occasion, so the pitcher throws him a lot of junk. Nobody coming up that can hit after him, so Gene is rendered pretty useless in run production. He needed to hit in those situations!
He got on base a LOT and didn't score too many runs and if you take away the runs he scored when he hit a HR, he didn't drive in too many either.
OPS+ really gets some things wrong!
Even on top of 37 games off? Tenace played 61 CGs at catcher in 1975, out of 125 total games there. Not even half his games. There's taking innings off and then there's...whatever they were doing with Tenace.
No, I'm not ignoring your obvious point. But my point, which you are ignoring while claiming not to be, is that if a player whose greatest strength is being able to walk (Tenace walked at a nearly identical rate no matter where in the order he hit) and you are the manager and put that player in the 6 spot, then any lack of productivity is on you, not the player. Tenace was extremely predictable and consistent as a hitter throughout his career. Every manager he ever had knew, or should have known, that he would be on base more than any other player on the team. If he has a smart manager who puts him in the 2 or 3 spot - Tenace is a great player. If he has a stupid manager who puts him in 6-8 spot - Tenace is not a great player. That is precisely what you are saying, whether you admit it or even understand it, and it's nonsense. Tenace was Tenace, and his value was his value; the only variable is his spot in the order, something over which he had no control. I refuse to rank a player based on a factor over which he had no control, because that would make no sense at all.
Well, the fast/slow distinction is obviously true, but irrelevant. The batting order distinction is simply false. It is the same guy with a different manager.
The reason that Tenace walked so much is that he was good enough to do so. And, for the 1,312th time, he walked at the same rate no matter where in the order he was hitting. No matter how many players were on base, no matter who was pitching, Tenace would draw a walk very often. To put the player on your team who will be on base the most often in a spot in the order where there is nobody to drive him in is almost so dumb you'd think it couldn't possibly describe any actual MLB manager. That it does describe some of his managers is sad, but it is no way a mark against Tenace.
Your obsession with the imaginary flaws you see in OPS+ is amusing; please never stop.
Well, just one road, but if you have an obsessive enough actuary diverting traffic from all the other roads, the result is the same.