Options
How about the most Overrated player of all time?
Jersey
Posts: 542
in Sports Talk
The "most underrated player of all time" thread is very interesting. Now, how about the most overrated player?
Wise men learn more from fools than fools learn from the wise.
0
Comments
He was a four time stolen base leader, and an outstanding firstbaseman. Ty Cobb once called him " The closest thing to a perfect ballplayer he had seen". Two times did he hit over .400, his record of 257 hits in a 154 game season still stands.
George led the league in BA., SBs, runs created, runs scored, total bases, triples, and times on base, in various seasons. He was second in HRs, RBIs, and SLG % in a few seasons.
Sisler played mainly for the inept, small market ( even in their own home town ) St. Louis Browns. He was quite reserved and shy with the press and has no really outstanding baseball cards. Certainly not as well known as other more colorful figures from his era.
This lifetime .340 hitter was elected to the HOF in 1939.
To compare him with the likes of Ruth, Cobb, Mays, and Williams is a definite over-rate.
<< <i>How about George Sisler ??
He was a four time stolen base leader, and an outstanding firstbaseman. Ty Cobb once called him " The closest thing to a perfect ballplayer he had seen". Two times did he hit over .400, his record of 257 hits in a 154 game season still stands.
George led the league in BA., SBs, runs created, runs scored, total bases, triples, and times on base, in various seasons. He was second in HRs, RBIs, and SLG % in a few seasons.
Sisler played mainly for the inept, small market ( even in their own home town ) St. Louis Browns. He was quite reserved and shy with the press and has no really outstanding baseball cards. Certainly not as well known as other more colorful figures from his era.
This lifetime .340 hitter was elected to the HOF in 1939.
To compare him with the likes of Ruth, Cobb, Mays, and Williams is a definite over-rate.
Sounds to me he was an underated ballplayer
mickey mantle (not because he was a bad ball player, just because he is always talked about, we get it he was an american hero)
if I here about one Mickey Mantle subset by Topps, I am going to kill myself
Most overrated for sure
<< <i>I am going to hear the masses on this one but I think
mickey mantle (not because he was a bad ball player, just because he is always talked about, we get it he was an american hero)
if I here about one Mickey Mantle subset by Topps, I am going to kill myself
Most overrated for sure >>
Incorrect.
Overhyped? Yes. Overrated. Of course not.
<< <i>
<< <i>I am going to hear the masses on this one but I think
mickey mantle (not because he was a bad ball player, just because he is always talked about, we get it he was an american hero)
if I here about one Mickey Mantle subset by Topps, I am going to kill myself
Most overrated for sure >>
Incorrect.
Overhyped? Yes. Overrated. Of course not. >>
To me personnaly there is not much difference
<< <i>Yaz - hands down >>
No doubt he is overated
All he could do was strike people out, he couldn't win consistently. He was a thrower, not a pitcher, and never could perfect his craft, like Jim Palmer or Tom Seaver did. The third all time losingest pitcher with 292 loses, the alltime base on balls leader with 2, 795, and the all time leader in wild pitches, Ryan continually lead the league in ineptness.
Website
As much as I can't stand the guy, Bonds, even without the steroids, was the first player in major league history to hit 500 homers with 500 stolen bases. He was a 3-time MVP before the "bulk up" and is one of the game's greatest players, even without the juice. That's what makes the steroid use post-1998 all the more sad--he was well on his way to the HOF regardless. It'd be like Ken Griffey Jr. suddenly juicing up now and whacking 70 homers--Griffey's a HOF right now, so why mess with your legacy? Of course, the answer was jealousy/greed/ego, you name it. Ironically, for a guy who states that he doesn't care what others think of him, he obviously cared quite a bit to wreck his reputation in going after the glory.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Don Drysdale- 2
Brooks Robinson- 3
Ozzie Smith- 4
Rickey Henderson- 5
Now all we need is a vote for Mattingly and a vote for Munson and we are all set !
-- Yogi Berra
<< <i>This one is easy......... Nolan Ryan.
All he could do was strike people out, he couldn't win consistently. He was a thrower, not a pitcher, and never could perfect his craft, like Jim Palmer or Tom Seaver did. The third all time losingest pitcher with 292 loses, the alltime base on balls leader with 2, 795, and the all time leader in wild pitches, Ryan continually lead the league in ineptness. >>
Wins is the one thing a pitcher can not really if his team does not score for him, which was his problem, he did only have a career ERA of 3.19. Striking out 5,700 people is impressive no matter how you look at it. He averaged 9/k per game, which is #4 all time. I do agree that his walk totals were high, he did face 22,500 batters which is #5 all time, behind only one modern day player, Phil Niekro. Ryan might have lead the league in ineptness continually but he also was consistently feared by hitters for good reason.
How can the all time strikeout leader and someone who throws 7 no hitters be overrated
and Derek Jeter isnt overrated he is misunderstood lol.
* C. PASCUAL BASIC #3
* T. PEREZ BASIC #4 100%
* L. TIANT BASIC #1
* DRYSDALE BASIC #4 100%
* MAGIC MASTER #4/BASIC #3
* PALMEIRO MASTER/BASIC #1
* '65 DISNEYLAND #2
* '78 ELVIS PRESLEY #6
* '78 THREE'S COMPANY #1
WaltDisneyBoards
bad back or not a hand full of good years on bad teams
didn't i read somewhere where yankee fans voted him the all-time yankee firstbaseman??? WOW unbelievable
i guessed they forgot that gehrig fellow
collecting RAW Topps baseball cards 1952 Highs to 1972. looking for collector grade (somewhere between psa 4-7 condition). let me know what you have, I'll take it, I want to finish sets, I must have something you can use for trade.
looking for Topps 71-72 hi's-62-53-54-55-59, I have these sets started
Dizzy Dean
Reggie Jackson
Hate the Yankees but Jeter is not overrated, maybe overpaid.
Leaving aside a few of the sillier anti-Yankee posts (Mickey Mantle overrated? Good God!) I'd like to comment on a few of the others.
1. Nolan Ryan probably is overrated. Unless you are a team owner and want to boost your media exposure and merchandising, the only thing that matters when judging a pitcher is how many earned runs he allows - everything else (wins, titles, etc.) is out of his control. And on that basis, Ryan was merely great and not the top-10 all-time kind of pitcher he is commonly claimed to be. If I could pick just one pitcher's games to watch on tape for the rest of my life, it would be Ryan's; he was the most exciting pitcher ever, but not one of the very best.
2. Ozzie Smith was the greatest shortstop in history and a fair to mediocre hitter. That's my opinion and I don't know that I have heard very many people offer a different assessment of him. So I don't know how he can be called "overrated" when everyone's "rating" of him is pretty much spot on. Now, if someone claims that it wold be better to have Ozzie Smith in their lineup than Honus Wagner or Cal Ripken, then yes, they are seriously overrating him; but I don't hear anyone saying that.
3. Reggie Jackson belongs on a list of underrated players much more than he belongs on a list of overrated players. Phenomenal, top-tier HOFer who is too often dismissed because he struck out a lot and had a relatively low BA.
If he had not played in NY nobody would even think of him. Poor mans Harmon Killebrew and not even close to be the same caliber hitter of a Manny Ramirez.
<< <i>Reggie Jackson is overrated, his strikeout totals are mind blowing, his ba stunk. He only had 6 seasons with 100 plus rbi's. >>
Thank you for the primer on the most common mistakes made in player evaluation. Goes to show how even a top-tier HOFer can be made to look otherwise if one focuses entirely on the irrelevant.
The difference between Killebrew and Jackson is the parks they played in and not much else. It's a razor-thin margin, but I'd rate Jackson just ahead of Killebrew based on his baserunning more than anything else. Either way, they're both among the 50 greatest hitters of all time (as is Manny Ramirez).
i wouldnt rank Reggie has a great "hitter" definitely a slugger, but not a hitter.
<< <i>Nolan Ryan played for some god awful teams over the years.
How can the all time strikeout leader and someone who throws 7 no hitters be overrated
And he also had 12 one hitters and countless two hitters.
Consistently hitting 100 mph with a nasty curve yet having a long career proves he was a pitcher, not a thrower.
dallasactuary - Really? The only thing a pitcher can truly control are his walks, strikeouts and homeruns allowed. Earned runs, of course, are mostly his doing but defense is a huge factor in that. Earned runs might be the best way to evaluate a pitcher if you were only using one method, but otherwise, each stat including wins must be given some weight in an evaluation.
Might I add
There is no one way or no single stat to fully evaluate a hitter or pitcher. Some stats or formulars may be better than others but there are always exceptions and usually the more stats the better.
Of course earned runs are NOT the ONLY thing that matters to judge a pitcher, they are of great importance, however some other things come into play. If a pitcher gives up more hits and/or walks, he is more likely to have the chance of giving up an unearned run and thus a possible loss. Wins and losses do matter and earned runs are not the ONLY factor in evaluation. A hurler who strikes out a lot of batters is also less likely to have baserunners and therefore a less chance of giving up a possible unearned run. A pitcher's feilding ability also is a factor of his worth, in the NL, his hitting ability should be considered in his value.
An earned run is sometimes determined by the judgment of a writer in the press box, via his calling a hit or an error. All pitchers in any given season do not face the same teams or lineups, it balances out somewhat over a full career, but many single seasons have provided some unlikely ERA champs. Did those guys have powerfull years or get a little lucky in facing a high percentage of the poorer hitting teams or maybe pitch when the big hitter was getting a day off to rest ?. A Detroit Tiger pitcher who had a decent ERA in 1927 against the Yankees , probably had a better ERA against the last place poor hitting Red Sox.
The very best, the most dominant, the top performer ever, over a full career in ERA.... is Ed Walsh, an unbelievable 1.82 !!!!!
He has been a league leader in Wins, Ks, and IP as well.
Why dont more feel as I do, that he was indeed, one of the 10 best starting pitchers ever ???
Walsh's era while, of course, outstanding is not as impressive when you consider when he pitched. In the years he pitched 1904-1912 there were FORTY-TWO times when a pitcher had an era less than 2.00 for a full season. The 3-4-5 leaders in career era all pitched at the same time as Walsh and none are in the Hall of Fame. His career also basically ended at the age of 31 so he missed out on years when his era would have risen. Pedro Martinez career era of 2.80 is, in my eyes, far more impressive than the 1.82 that Walsh posted for his career.
If Bill James were to update his rankings now, Walsh would probably rank around 21st or 22nd all-time among starting pitchers. That seems about right.
There is a stat called ERA+, adjusts/measures ballparks and time peroids to balance things out.
Walsh is rated the 3rd best of any HOF starting pitcher
Right behind Walter Johnson and Lefty Grove.
That seems about right.
Pedro is good, when he is finished, depending on his last few seasons , he will probavly rank very high in ERA+.
Walsh basically only pitched seven full time seasons. Take a look at his seven full time seasons, which represent 2,500 of his 2,900 lifetime innings. Then compare that to Mathewson's(and Young's) best seven seasons.
Walsh----Matty-----CY
189--------230------216
167--------222------194
163--------168------176
149--------168------166
149--------159------153
144--------156------152
135--------151------145
Almost all of Walsh's career innings are in that time span above, and he never had any very young man innings, or any old man innings. His age was 24-31 in that span, and that is basically all he pitched. Mathewson threw many more innings besides just his prime seasons. He logged a lot of very young man innings, and he threw more innings when he was past his prime.
Looking at that chart above it tells a more accurate year by year story of who the better pitcher was. Mathewson beats him handily. Mathewson also added four other ERA+ seasons(FULL TIME IP) over 130.
Cy Young also beats him on his best seven seasons, and he also added eight other full time seasons with a 120 or above ERA+.
While Walsh was outstanding, he wasn't as good as those two(and possibly another one or two from that time not listed...aside from WJ).
2. Ryan
3. Brock
4. Jack Chesbro
5. Almost any HOFer from the Giants or Cardinals inducted by the Veterans Comittee when it was controlled by Frankie Frisch
6. Drysdale
7. Gil Hodges-he does not belong in the HOF (nor does Drysdale for that matter)
8. George Kell
9. Lloyd Waner (His OPS for his career was below the league average).
10. Mattingly, Munson, and a host of other Yankees who were fine ballplayers but not worthy of serious HOF consideration.
Walsh----Pedro Maddux
167--------285------273
163--------245------259
149--------221------191
149--------212------191
144--------196------171
135--------189------166
Every single one of Pedro's top seven seasons and six of Maddux's top seven seasons are BETTER than Walsh's best season.
There are 12 pitchers in Walsh's era that posted ERA+ of over 130 for their career. I would guess a majority of them (all except Smokey Joe Wood and probably Jim Devlin) score better for their top 7 or 8 seasons than Walsh.
Walsh was definately a great pitchers, his stats other than ERA+ are better than most pitchers of his time but I would still agree with James that his ranking in the low 20's is accurate.
<< <i>~"the only thing that matters when judging a pitcher is how many earned runs he allows - everything else (wins, titles, etc.) is out of his control." >>
Is it?
What if a pitcher had a very high WHIP and OAVG but had a low ERA because his defense stunk?
What if a starter had a low ERA and was effective but had little endurance, forcing his manager to go to the pen and tire it out after 5-6 innings almost every time out?
In the former case, a bad defense is masking the lack of effectiveness, and in the latter case, he may be good while he lasts but may cost you some games by tiring your 'pen.
I agree that wins are not a good measure of a pitcher. There's really no good single stat that measures a pitcher well.
I brought up Ed Walsh , baseball's last 40 game winner, who does have very best ERA lifetime, and the 3rd best career ERA+ of any starting pitcher already in the HOF, merely to provoke some comments about the correctness/flaws of viewing ERA as the main measure of a hurler. Worked fairly well.
I do feel Big Ed is somewhat underrated, and does probably belong in a list of the top ten starters. When Clemens, Pedro, and Maddox are done the list might very well change.
Just a note on wins-losses for a pitcher value factor.
They certainly are of some importance, and of course winning a game is the primary object for any good player. In 1910, my hero, Ed Walsh had a 1.27 ERA which led the league. He also led in saves and fewest walks per 9 IN. That year Ed was second in K's, and IP. He threw 7 shoutouts as well. His final W-L record was 16-20 !!!
my vote? not sure yet... tune in later
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>This is not so much a knock on the player, but on ESPN. My vote for the most overrated player goes to Jeter because of the way ESPN glorifies him without ceasing and without shame. If I accepted everything that ESPN reported as gospel regarding Jeter, I'm pretty sure I'd be taking communion in rememberance of Derek H. Jeter. >>
Don't forget McCarver. He seems to worship Jeter.
A couple months ago the pastor at my church revealed himself as a closet Yankees fan. I know this because during one sermon he meant to say "Jesus and Peter" and slipped up, saying "Jeter" instead.
<< <i>What if a pitcher had a very high WHIP and OAVG but had a low ERA because his defense stunk?
What if a starter had a low ERA and was effective but had little endurance, forcing his manager to go to the pen and tire it out after 5-6 innings almost every time out?
>>
A pitcher with a very high WHIP and OAVG will have a high ERA no matter how good or bad his defense is. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here, but I think you're implying that if a defense was SO bad that it let in 2 or three unearned runs a game that that would somehow help the pitcher's ERA. It wouldn't. Whether or not a run is earned or unearned isn't set in stone until the inning is over; if an error lets in a run that would have been driven in by the next batter anyway, then it goes down as an earned run. On the other hand, I can think of a few situations where bad defense might HURT a pitcher's ERA, but even those are uncommon enough in the real world that it would be the very rare case where it mattered when comparing two pitchers.
But I'll grant you that a pitcher should also be judged by his innings pitched in combination with his ERA and I should have made that clear in my earlier statement. That's the reason that almost every relief pitcher is grossly overrated.
<< <i>It's amazing to me how many Red Sox fans think Jeter is overrated and yet overlook one of the most obvious overrated players of all time in Yaz. Jeter is multiples the player Yaz ever was. >>
I'm not saying Jeter's a bad player or that he's not worthy of mention in conversations about greatness. I just don't think he deserves all the excessive praise he gets from the media. I think Yaz is overrated too, but I'm not forced to endure the constant hero worship of Yaz like I am with Jeter whenever I turn on a baseball game or watch Sportscenter. I really think that if Jeter played for the Royals he'd just be considered a really good shortstop and not the icon he is now.
If someone is telling you that Yaz was better than Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle then I'll just concede that, in those cases, Yaz is being overrated. But is anyone saying that? If what you're hearing is that Yaz is the greatest Red Sox player since Ted Williams and a solid HOFer, then he's not being overrated.
I think maybe we have a tendency to hear talk about how great a player was and assume that we're hearing a desscription of how great a player was each and every year of his career. Then we look it up and see that a player had lots of years where he wasn't all that great and decide he's overrated. But in Yaz's case, consider:
1. The only players in history who can claim to have been as good a hitter as Yaz for a four year stretch are Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Lou Gehrig, Rogers Hornsby, Ty Cobb, Jimmie Foxx, Honus Wagner, Frank Robinson and Mike Schmidt (and a couple of steroid abusers). At his peak, Yaz was one of the greatest who ever played the game.
2. On a related note, Yaz was, for a stretch of 4 years, the best player in baseball. That's not a claim that very many players can make, and its not a claim that anyone else mentioned in this thread as "overrated" (except the silly mention of Mantle) can make.
3. Yaz played 23 seasons and never had a bad season; in fact, even in his last two seasons (at 42 and 43) he was still better than the average player.
4. Had he retired after as few at bats, Yaz was every bit as good a career hitter as Duke Snider. Through a comparable number of at bats, Yaz was as good a hitter as Albert Belle (PLEASE don't tell me how many RBIs Belle had). That Yaz managed to play another decade as a productive player after that point has to be a good thing, right? I hope everyone got the right answer ("right").
A player who is great for a decade and then merely very good for a decade will have lower career averages than the player who was great for a decade, bad for a couple of years and then retires. But it is simply not reasonable to claim that the second player was better than the first player. To conclude that Yaz does not deserve his current place in baseball history I believe must be the result of faulty thinking along those lines.
Steve