Some of the most over rated baseball players of all time.
Goldenage
Posts: 3,278 ✭✭✭✭✭
Lou Brock.......The Hall of Famer was every bit of that against right-handers, but his .265/.308/.367 splits versus lefties was more like that of a platoon player.
Southpaws fed him a steady diet of sliders and curveballs, the result of which was 3.5 strikeouts for every walk.
And his -16.8 defensive WAR total?
Clayton Kershaw...His 4.43 earned run average in the postseason is nearly two full runs higher than in the regular season. This guy is no Sandy Koufax, who had a 0.95 postseason ERA and two World Series Most Valuable Player awards. Not even in the same area code.
Roger Maris...Some believe "The Rajah" deserves to be in the Hall of Fame largely because of one truly epic season. Yet he had only one other dominant season before his production tailed off quickly. What’s more, he was a considerable postseason disappointment.
Ron Santo...There was the Hall of Famer who hit .298 and slugged .529 in his Wrigley Field career. And then there the mediocre player who hit .257 and slugged .406 away from home.
While we’re at it, let’s not forget what a lousy teammate he was for much of his career and the role he played in the 1969 Cubbies collapse.
Dave Winfield...In a career that spanned three decades, Dave Winfield played long enough to get 3,000 hits and an automatic Hall pass. Yet he led the league in a single major category (RBI) and then only once.
In the postseason, "Winny" was pooh — .208 batting average, nine RBI, 26 games. And his defensive WAR was the dead of winter in his native St. Paul.
That would be 22.7 below zero. Brrrrr!
Tony Perez...................Perez hit .284 and slugged .470 with runners in scoring position. Solid, not sensational. Minus one Bill Lee eephus pitch, he was a non-factor in the postseason (.238 batting average, .669 OPS). Very one dimensional type player.
Joe Carter...The five-time All-Star is widely known for the second World Series walk-off homer in history.
It’s his subpar .306 on-base percentage, ordinary .771 OPS and unsightly -15.7 defensive WAR total that tend to be forgotten years later.
Of the 10 players with the most similar career scores, only borderliner Jim Rice has a plaque in Cooperstown.
Larry Bowa....... In a span of six seasons (1974-79), this pepperpot was an All-Star selection five times. He accomplished this with a .283 on-base percentage in one and a .298 OBP in another. Then again, the two-time Gold Glover was known for his defense, right?
Except that his range factor per nine innings was below the league average in each of his All-Star seasons as well as his career as a whole.
Jack Morris..............Basically, this mope got into the Hall of Fame because of his longevity and 10-inning shutout in the 1991 World Series. Otherwise, he ranks among the 20th of all time in three categories — wild pitches (13th), home runs allowed (16th) and bases on balls (19th). What’s more, he has the highest ERA of any pitcher in Cooperstown today.
Lee Smith.................While Lee Arthur Smith ranks behind only Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman on the all-time saves list, his career was remarkably void of signature moments. Well, positive ones, anyway.
The big right-hander blew two crucial Game 4s (1984 NLCS, 1988 ALCS) in his only postseason series. And while the metrics crunchers will tell you won-loss records don’t matter, his 71-92 mark was too bad to be ignored completely.
There are more, and I'd like to add Patrick Roy and Marty Brodeur to this list as well.
So who else should we add, besides Ken Anderson, Terry Bradshaw, and Joe Namath ?
Comments
Hack Wilson
every hall of fame closer
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I don't get the Larry Bowa inclusion here?
Bowa played above his physical limitations with non-stop hustle.
Nobody who i know believes that Bowa was a super star, overrated, or anything like that.
That's fair. If you're going to say Bowa was just a decent player on some very good teams, and was more like a Bake McBride type of player. But he was a 5 time All Star selection because of his defense. But his defense wasn't that superior, nor was his hitting. To be named an All Star 5 times either means shortstops were really bad in the NL during Bowa's time, or he was favorably looked upon for some reason that I am not aware of.
Roger Maris is one of my favorite players of all time. But i fully agree that he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, and he won't be.
What bothers me is Roger shouldn't be in because of only one spectacular season, but Bill Mazeroski gets in because of only one spectacular home run. A bit of hypocrisy there if ya ask me.
Valid points. But i recall during that time when Bowa was named to the All Star teams, not thinking that he didn't deserve it.
Oh Man this is going to be EPIC once @dallasactuary shows up... I’m pretty sure Ron Santo is his hero!
True. Until Ozzie came along it was basically Bowa and Concepcion in the NL. Bill Russell ? I think the Dodger was nothing like the Celtic.
Has anyone mentioned Steve Garvey?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Is he really ? Oh this should be fun. Dallas gave up in the Brodeur/Roy thread once he saw the overwhelming evidence. I’m sure he’ll do the same here. Lol
Ron Santo benefitted from Wrigley field the same way Colorado Rockies players benefit in their confines.
Away from Wrigley Santo was not hall of fame material, and a poor teammate to boot.
And when the going got tough in 1969, let’s just say that he did more to hurt his team than help them. A David Ortiz or George Brett he was not. Not even close.
Durocher describes Santo as a guy who would hit like crazy in blowout games, but would become very small in the clutch. That comes from Durocher. Lol
this one pains me, but what About Capt. Carl Yastrzemski?
he had 3 or 4 all time great seasons. another handful of great seasons, and the other half of his career was awfully average. I love Capt. Carl, but when half of your career is pedestrian... I think he may be overrated.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Yaz was not Ortiz like, but he was what he was. A very solid, very good ballplayer, who could just not reproduce those incredible years he had. I would say he was over rated because the Red Sox really sucked when he first joined them, and he led them to an incredible season, where he got his due.
I would say Dave Winfield is actually underrated. I don't believe he was a guy who hung on to get 3,000 hits. He was excellent in his prime and very good in his old man years. Even when he turned 40 he was still good. His OPS+ in his 40's was 110. That is pretty good as opposed to hanging on. He was also a full time player his whole career who didn't sit and take advantage of platoon splits like players like Gene Tenace did.
In fact, it wasn't until age 42 that Dave Winfield had his very first season where he was a below league average hitter. That is pretty darn impressive actually.
He threw up a few stinkers in the post season. Can't deny that. Baseball is a little different than other sports in post season though as even the very best players in the league go 0 for 4 on a frequent enough basis, that those little slumps in the post season are not a surprise because of the nature of the game.
Defensive WAR stats you can take with a grain of salt. Its validity is extremely poor. It is mostly a product of guessing if the player got balls hit to them or not, as opposed of the actual amount and their actual ability. It does not tell you how many balls were actually hit within fielding range that they missed. Without that information, it is purely guessing.
Great athlete as well.
I think you're looking at his offensive performance as opposed to his defensive liabilities.
And his offensive "performance" was never in the great category, and he is a hall of famer.
He was a very good ballplayer, but I feel if you put together a list of the all time 3,000 hit guys in MLB, Dave
Winfield as an all around player would have to be at least in the middle to the bottom of the list in greatest to least greatest.
I would like to know of all the 3000 hit players, who do you think offensively and defensively was worse than Winfield ?
I would think you'd have to come up with quite a few names to substantiate the term "underrated".
Winfield only led the league once in any hitting category.
Defensive WAR stats you can take with a grain of salt. Its validity is extremely poor. It is mostly a product of guessing if the player got balls hit to them or not, as opposed of the actual amount and their actual ability. It does not tell you how many balls were actually hit within fielding range that they missed. Without that information, it is purely guessing.
I would have to look and compare to the other 3,000 hits guys, but if he is the worst hitter of them, he is still a clear HOFer. I don't recall anyone saying he belongs on any Mt Rushmore's or anything.
He got robbed of one MVP. Often times too much weight is placed on being first in a category, and the several seconds and thirds arecompletely ignored, and the difference between first and second usually isn't much.
Winfield's gray ink test is 152. The average HOFer is 144. So hitting wise, his league rankings put him slightly above the average HOF hitter. No Mt RUshmore's for Winfield. Solid HOFer though.
Dallasactuary is going to tell you that Santo played in the era where offense was tough, and he is gong to be right. Santo played his prime years in that time.
The biggest knock on Santo is actually his career length. He was done at age 34 and his 125 OPS+ is a little thin for someone that retired that young.
Santo gets a lot of credit for his defense. If you believe in the defensive metrics(which includes the positional adjustment they add to the offense), then you have to believe in them with Santo too, and that is one of the main reasons why he is in there and his WAR is so high. If you don't take the defensive metrics at 100% of their results(like I don't because they are guesses), then Santo doesn't belong.
Kershaw is a clear HOF
Perez is a worthy HOF on the low end of that spectrum
Winfield a solid HOF.
Morris is the one guy on your list that is the most overrated as he got into the HOF over several contemporaries who were better, and several pitchers soon after who were also better...and not in.
Bowa, yeah he made five all stars, but does anybody even talk about him anymore. I don't see him being overrated. He is what he was, a punch and judy hitting shortstop. Someone has to make the All Star team at shortstop, and I have never bothered looking if he was deserving or not....but remember all star teams are selected with only about half of the season in the books, so that is a poor measure. Some guys get off to great starts and deserve all star, but then end up with a season that is not deserving.
That’s fine with Winfield, but like Santo, they both were not clutch offensively when their teams needed them most. Santos own coach is on record as saying it, and Winfield in the postseason was poor.
Yeah, can't deny they threw up some stinkers there....although Santo's wasn't in the post season. He may be getting a bad rap from a couple of instances of not being 'clutch'. I don't know if condemning him for his whole career is the right thing to do. Would need a little more evidence to show that he wasn't 'clutch'. Every elite player in baseball has non clutch moments.
Even guys like Ted Williams and Willie Mays have poor post season hitting. Baseball is a different beast. Hitting slumps are common, even for the very best, and it takes more than 80 at bats to declare things on baseball hitters.
How would you rate Santo as a hitter away from Wrigley ? Average ? Above Average ? All Star ?
While he was an excellent defender, if he didn’t play in Wrigley all those years, his offense drops off a lot.
Yes, I meant 1969 for Santo. Not postseason.
He has some of the most drastic home/road splits. He certainly enjoyed the friendly confines.
My answer is that It should give anyone pause on his true hitting ability, much like the Coors guys, or the the left handed hitters who played at League Park. Wade Boggs has a ridiculous split away from Fenway too. He took advantage of lofting fly balls off the monster for doubles.
Certainly has to make one question the results compared to players who did not have parks with such drastic advantages.
It is tricky though. Ballpark effects are a beast that nobody has truly tamed yet. I don't think that figuring an overall league average on a park and slapping that effect on EVERY hitter is the right thing to do, and that is what OPS+ does and all the other advanced measurements too.
I saw the Phillies 24-22 win over the Cubs in Wrigley when Schmidt and Kingman hit many moon shots that day.
I’ve seen game at Coors field that looks like a pinball game.
Something has to account for Santo hitting like an average hitter away from Wrigley.
You have a couple things in play with the ballpark effects:
1) You have the overall league numbers of everyone who played there and compare it to the rest of the league. This is where OPS+ gets its ballpark effect from, and that park advantage is already applied to Santo's 125 OPS+.
2)Then you have the actual results of the player that sometimes goes waaay beyond that OPS+ figure. I wrote a thing about Dimaggio and his HUGE LF that hurts him more than what his OPS+ is saying because the smaller right field neutralizes the overall park effect, yet Dimaggio was killed because of the vast left field.
There are a handful of parks that do that.
However, the type of hitter you are can also make it difficult, even for parks like Yankee stadium, as a RH hitter in that park may have actually been an opposite field type hitter, and he wasn't affected by LF as much as Dimaggio was.
So you look at the actual splits. You pointed out the drastic difference between Santo's home and road OPS, and that goes well beyond the park factor that is already baked into his OPS+
So where does that leave you? Is Santo's drastic difference a result from simple chance? Because not everything would be exactly even if everyone played in the exact park. There would still be guys who have big splits at home/road even if everything was the exact same(aside from the natural home field advantage). Just pure chance.
Or is Santo taking advantage of the park more so than most RH hitters? Wrigley plays well for gap to gap fly ball type hitters. If you are the type of hitter that can pepper fly balls just beyond where the 'well' comes in, you are going to take great advantage of that park. If you are a ground ball hitter, it doesn't effect you as much. If you are hitting balls down the line more, then Wrigley may actually hurt you.
Wrigley was unique too in that there were ONLY day games played there. Who knows if or how much that can help or hurt a hitter.
So there is a lot. It isn't as simple as those numbers that are slapped on everyone and then treated as the supreme law of the land.
Personally, looking at the fact that Wrigley was a hitters park, and seeing that Santo has extreme drastic splits that go beyond that fact...if I see Santo's 125 OPS+ and see another hitter with a 120 OPS+ in similar career length and a normal park, I don't have a problem giving the edge to the 120 guy. But how far do you go with that? You aren't going to make a 100 OPS+ guy as good.
There is a lot to it.
The way I see it is that Ron Santo equals Mike Lowell during the regular season. Lowell was helpful to the Red Sox in the postseason, while Durocher said Santo was weak when it counted the most.
If you think Mike Lowell was great, then you think Ron Santo was great. I don’t see Mike Lowell as hall of fame. Very good, but not hall.
Mike Lowell and Santo both hit in hitter friendly parks, ended their careers with similar slugging percentages. Lowell was a 2007 World Series MVP, and Santo sucked in the clutch according to Durocher. Santo is in the hall and Lowell isn’t.
One major difference is that Lowell played in the live ball era and Santo did not. The game(including the ball) was geared toward hitters during Lowell's time. The game(including the mound height), was geared toward pitchers in Santo's time.
Those facets cannot be ignored. This is a case where OPS+ helps sort some of that out.
Not just that. I've said before that walks to a middle order hitter have a lesser advantage, but it does NOT eliminate those walk values. Santo had an excellent OB% that cannot be ignored.
Santo .826 OPS
Lowell ..805 OPS
Santo 125 OPS+
Lowell 108 OPS+
There is a big difference between their hitting.
Add the fact that Santo did it in almost 3,000 more plate appearances, I completely disagree with the comparison between those two players.
Lowell hit in the steroid and relief pitcher era where you could face Nolan Ryan velocity for 9 straight innings day after day. Did Ron Santo ever face Mariano Rivera ? The mound factor is legit.
I don't deny those factors. That is another topic and most worthy of discussion. It is quite possible that the best players ever are roaming the fields in spring training as I type.
At no time in history has there ever been pitching as big and tall as the pitchers today, or throwing as hard. Every team in the league has more guys who throw 95+ MPH consistently on their staff as there were guys throwing 95+ in the entire league in 1925. Heck, the guys now throw harder than the guys 15 years ago...and with command and breaking pitches to match.
Size does matter.
Worthy topic.
However, for Lowell to overcome that deficit based on those factors, you will have to apply that same deficit across the board...and that may eliminate every single all time great off the board of the best ever.
There is a certain difference, but still not as drastic enough to overcome the difference between those two.
For instance, does that mean everyone in the last ten years with a lifetme OPS+ of 130 would be better than Hank Aaron and his 155? If Lowell is better than Santo based on those factors, than a lot of guys pass Aaron too. It isn't as easy as that.
There is a case to be made that nhl goaltenders are getting better and better decade after decade, and mlb hitters and pitchers are getting better too.
I would think expansion would also play a big part. When Santo began there were only 8 teams in the NL and 16 overall. As expansion has happened, the level of talent goes down as more players are required.
Why? Just why?
I know, right. you grow up practically idolizing some of these guys. sometimes when you take a good look at the stats they are not quite what you remember.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
My favorite player ever is Jim Rice. I was about five years old when that stuck to me. But Yaz was a huge part of it for me as a kid and a Red Sox fan. Huge.
According to Baseball Reference, Santo has an average of at least .269 and an OPS of at least .793 in every "clutch" category, including an .857 for "late and close". The idea that he "sucked in the clutch" is just flat out false.
This is one I have long thought. Yaz is seen as an all-time great but he's a corner OF and 1B who generally hit about 16 homers a year. In the 20-year stretch from 1961 to 1980, he hit 20 homers 8 times. There's no question he was amazing from 1967-70 but what about the rest of the time? Let's not forget he hit .264 with a .779 away from Fenway as opposed to .306 & .904 at home.
The post was designed to irritate me, but so transparently that it didn't work. It just made me laugh. A thread designed to drag condescension and personal insults out of me - and shame on those of you who are playing along, especially the ones pretending that Yaz wasn't one of the greatest players ever - is no place for the new, kinder, gentler, dallasactuary.
Maybe so but he did invent the Brockabrella.
Some day i'd like to be a kinder, gentler poster...but i haven't reached that distinguished plateau yet, and probably never will.
😂😂😂👏👍👍
I never said it, his manager Durocher did. Durocher said he'd hit the lights out in games where they were winning big, and in games that were close he would not perform.
While Ron Santo was playing, nobody, and i do mean nobody, would have called him a superstar or worthy of the Hall of Fame. Nobody!
Then all of a sudden many years later, he becomes a Hall of Famer?
Frankly, it's just like Bill Mazeroski...ridiculous.
It's not about them deserving it because they don't deserve it, and we all know it. It's about the money. MLB and all other professional sports are about the money. Always has been and always will be...and that's okay. It's professional entertainment and one way or the other we pay for that entertainment...and that's fine.
Without question, those who vote perceive that the more players who are in the Hall, deserving or not, then the more revenue will be generated because of that. Frankly, they are probably right.
If you think that Barry Bonds isn't in the Hall of Fame because he doesn't deserve it, sorry to say that you are a bit naive. I've got him on my list as the 4th greatest hitter of all time. Of course Bonds deserves to be in the Hall.
No, the voters haven't voted in Bonds because they believe an infamous steroid user such as him allowed in the Hall, would detract from folks wishing to visit the Hall. Hence detract from revenue. And they are probably right about that as well.
Correct. Except for just one little, itsy bitsy spider who posts on this forum.
Let me ask the Santo supporters this one little question.
Is Scott Rolen worthy of the Hall of Fame ?
If you're a fan of WAR, then Rolen and Santo are both in the 70 to 70.5 range in lifetime WAR.
Look. Scott Rolen was a very good 3rd baseman. Ron Santo was a very good 3rd baseman.
Were they like B. Robinson, Brett, Schmidt, Matthews, C.Jones, or Beltre ? Not even close.
If you feel that Ron Santo belongs in the Hall, then you have to back Scott Rolen as well. Same type of player.
Except Rolen played in a big ball park in St. Louis as opposed to the home run dome in Wrigley.
Remember, outside of Wrigley, Santo was an itsy bitsy spider himself.
Being that Santo is in the hall of fame means that he is over rated. If he didn't play in Chicago, his offensive stats
would have easily kept him out of the hall of fame. He is one lucky puppy to have played half his games at Wrigley.
We can now close down this thread too. The overwhelming evidence supports the thesis. Have a good day gentlemen.
Brock is in the Hall mainly for his ability to steal bases... anyone that stole over 900 in their career deserves to be there. Not overrated... he recognized for a talent that few have.
Yaz overrated? That does not even come close to passing the straight face test and is simply not worthy of a reply.
Hack Wilson overrated? Looking at his career and the issues he had in his personal life... some of which were beyond his control... unfortunately lead some to think his is not worthy. I disagree as most here take a modern yardstick and apply it to the game that was different 90 years ago. Wilson had unique issues that we should not pass judgment and acknowledge what he did and when he did it.
Santo? Seems part of the reason he has been falsely accused here is because he played for the Cubs and obviously the Cubs played at Wrigley Field. Santo was an exciting third baseman in a similar tradition of Brooks Robinson. I see him as being worthy of the HOF.
Seems we need to be careful about stats and what they mean mainly because there are still what ifs that really do not capture or memorialize greatness.
Let's take a moment and change the discussion. Camilo Pascual was a pitcher with significant talent that pitched for the Washington Senators starting in the 1954-55 time frame and made the move to Minnesota in 1961. He lead the AL in strikeouts and/or was in the top 5 for many seasons. Only the most ardent baseball fans/historians probably remember the name. He retired in 1971 and finished with a 174-170 record. Ted Williams said of Pascual that he had one of the best curve balls in the American league that he had ever seen.
So... what is my point with mentioning Pascual?
Folks here are punishing Santo for playing at Wrigley and citing better stats for Santo as Wrigley has a long standing tradition of being a hitters park. So using Pascual's misfortune in terms of being a starter for the Senators and not a decent hitting team like the Yankees, is there not a double standard here? Had Pascual not pitched for the last place Senators for years, what would his legacy be? Obviously far more significant than it currently stands. Yes Pascual had great seasons for the Twins in the early 1960s but that illustrates my point as to his talent. He likely would be in the HOF if more of his career was spent with a decent hitting/fielding team. And that did not happen and Pascual slides into obscurity instead having a place in baseball he may deserve.
If you folks want to close the thread... well that is you prerogative as I would not have started one in the first place.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Santo.....falsely accused ?
The numbers don’t lie. There is a big drop off in his production hitting at Wrigley and away from Wrigley.
You basically feel that Scott Rolen is hall of fame material, because he and Santo are one in the same.
Neither are hall of fame, and Santo is Graig Nettles or less if he didn’t play in Wrigley.
Pascual was a very good pitcher! Unfortunately he hurt his back in 1965 and never really regained his abilities.
@Goldenage
I do not reduce my evaluation of a player solely to stats and numbers as there is more to measuring greatness. I will leave the numbers to those that choose to dwell on them.
But going back to Santo and Wrigley raises the question as to just a home field advantage and what role that would play. I suspect the majority of players have better stats at home games... over playing on the road. Not that I have researched that question, but seems to make sense. Makes me wonder how Santo's numbers break down at the other NL Parks and if their is a correlation with better numbers at parks that have the tradition of favoring hitters. Sort of makes me wonder if Willie Mays or Mel Ott complained about the size of Center Field at the Polo Grounds and how it effect their HR numbers.
@JoeBanzai
Thanks for acknowledging that Pascual was a very good pitcher. I selected him mainly because talent is not always reflected in or captured by numbers and stats.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.