What happened to Yaz?
craig44
Posts: 11,255 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
I was looking at baseball reference and noticed that Carl yastrzemski kind of dropped off a cliff offensively after the 1970 season. I am too young to remember what happened. Was there an injury? He was still a relatively young player to enter such a decline. Did his skills just erode early? His power and average really dropped off.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
0
Comments
Another important question is , what happened to his Polska Kielbasa billboard on route 24 northbound? It was there for at least 20 years but its not there anymore
I was looking at baseball reference and noticed that Carl yastrzemski kind of dropped off a cliff offensively after the 1970 season. I am too young to remember what happened. Was there an injury? He was still a relatively young player to enter such a decline. Did his skills just erode early? His power and average really dropped off.
He had a pretty good year in 1977.
Yaz had some tremendous years and a lot of above average years. 4 years with an OPS over .922 and two of those over 1.040!
He had 11 or so years below .800 (although most were in the high 700's) and other than his 3 big home run years he averaged about 16 per year.
I don't remember him being injured, I think he just went from unbelievably great to very good.
I think the better later years were from a career boost during the 75 playoffs when he had a big playoff series and hit over 300 in the series. But he was 35 by then.
I think some of you are looking at Yaz out of context. The early 70's, even in Fenway, was still a tough hitting era, and Yaz was still a very good player in '71 and '72. In '71, he was 10th in OBP and in '72 he was 7th in WPA. In '73 and '74 he was a great player. I guess you could say he'd lost some power, but he really only hit many HR in three seasons before that. He was top 5 in times on base in both '73 and '74 and top 10 in OPS+ both seasons, too. No doubt his peak ended at age 30 in 1970, but age 30 is about where most players peak unless they're cheating. The answer to the question in the post title is "he got older", same as every other player.
In 1977 he had a .877 OPS and a 125 OPS+ but in 1974 he had a .859 OPS and a much higher OPS+ of 140, in fact in 1973 he had a higher OPS (.870) than 1974 but a LOWER OPS+ of 139. Seems odd to me. Care to give me your thoughts on why? Was there a big difference in the "hitting era" between 1973-74 than 1977? Between 1973 and 1974?
Yaz did have a big drop in numbers, he was number 1 in several categories from 1965 to 1970 (1966 and again 1969 he had unusual drops in OPS) and then had a pretty big drop for the rest of his career (although he was still above average) looks to me that he simply had a fantastic, but uneven peak and then he settled down to a nice but unspectacular hitting career.
Ted Williams might have explained it for the OP in his book "Ted Williams Hit List"; "Yaz was an experimental guy with his bat. He could never convince himself what was good and when he was doing it right, and he couldn't convince himself when something was wrong. He changed a lot." Williams was called on for advice to help Yaz on more than one occasion and Ted knew more about hitting than just about anyone (in my opinion). Ted did NOT consider Yaz a great hitter.
Good enough to get into the HOF!
I suppose "big" is in the eye of the beholder. There was a difference in "hitting era" between 1973-74 and 1977, as the numbers you cite demonstrate. Whether that difference is big or not is up to you.
The differences between 1973 and 1974 weren't "big" by any reasonable definition, but then neither are the differences in Yaz's OPS or OPS+. That looks like random noise to me.
And with all due respect to Mr. Williams, if he really said that Yaz wasn't a great hitter then he was either a moron or we're missing some important context. Because Yaz was a great hitter by any standard whatsoever in several years. I don't know when Williams said that, or if he was referring to something specific when he said "hitting", or if he just meant "as great as Ruth or Mantle or me". But if he meant that Yaz wasn't a great hitter in 1965-1970, then he's just wrong.
I was thinking that 15-16 points was fairly "big" in OPS+, the difference between 1977 and 73-74 years seemed odd to me, especially in SLG where Yaz was quite a bit higher in '77. 1977 looks to be a better year for Carl, I was just wondering if you could explain why his OPS+ doesn't agree.
Not trying to start an argument, just wondering why you might know the numbers are different. If you don't deem my question worthy of an answer, that's fine.
Ted was talking about all time great hitters, and he was talking about entire careers not peaks. It's a quote from a book he wrote that MIGHT help answer the OP's question.
I was thinking that 15-16 points was fairly "big" in OPS+, the difference between 1977 and 73-74 years seemed odd to me, especially in SLG where Yaz was quite a bit higher in '77. 1977 looks to be a better year for Carl, I was just wondering if you could explain why his OPS+ doesn't agree.
Not trying to start an argument, just wondering why you might know the numbers are different. If you don't deem my question worthy of an answer, that's fine.
Sounds like Ted's definition of "great" is just more restrictive than mine. Clearly he was no Ruth or Williams or Mays, but he's comfortably in the next tier below that.
The league average OPS in 1973-74 was 702, and in 1977 it was 735 - a 5% increase. On top of that, the Fenway park factor was 107 in 1973-74 (any given player would be expected to have an OPS 7% higher in Fenway than in other parks), and that increased to 113 in 1977 - another 6% increase. So, hitting got easier in the AL over that period, and it got easier still if you played in Fenway. As for why that happened, I think expansion in 1977 - adding a bunch of pitchers who otherwise wouldn't have been in the majors - probably played a part in the league increase. Why hitting in Fenway increased relatively more than other parks I don't know; the only change to Fenway during that period was that the scoreboard on the green monster was moved a little bit. It's possible that that helped the offense, but it seems unlikely.
Ted was talking about all time great hitters, and he was talking about entire careers not peaks. It's a quote from a book he wrote that MIGHT help answer the OP's question.
I was thinking that 15-16 points was fairly "big" in OPS+, the difference between 1977 and 73-74 years seemed odd to me, especially in SLG where Yaz was quite a bit higher in '77. 1977 looks to be a better year for Carl, I was just wondering if you could explain why his OPS+ doesn't agree.
Not trying to start an argument, just wondering why you might know the numbers are different. If you don't deem my question worthy of an answer, that's fine.
Sounds like Ted's definition of "great" is just more restrictive than mine. Clearly he was no Ruth or Williams or Mays, but he's comfortably in the next tier below that.
The league average OPS in 1973-74 was 702, and in 1977 it was 735 - a 5% increase. On top of that, the Fenway park factor was 107 in 1973-74 (any given player would be expected to have an OPS 7% higher in Fenway than in other parks), and that increased to 113 in 1977 - another 6% increase. So, hitting got easier in the AL over that period, and it got easier still if you played in Fenway. As for why that happened, I think expansion in 1977 - adding a bunch of pitchers who otherwise wouldn't have been in the majors - probably played a part in the league increase. Why hitting in Fenway increased relatively more than other parks I don't know; the only change to Fenway during that period was that the scoreboard on the green monster was moved a little bit. It's possible that that helped the offense, but it seems unlikely.
Williams was VERY opinionated, I have read in a couple of different books where he criticized Yaz. Probably thought he should have been better.
I can't remember the manager who said it but his opinion was "Yaz is an All-Star, but only from the neck down"
Thanks for the info on league OPS averages, I can't see why hitting at Fenway got easier, but expansion could have been a factor in the overall OPS increase.
Still makes me crazy when I see a year like Yaz had in '77 rated worse than '73 or '74.
I think some of you are looking at Yaz out of context. The early 70's, even in Fenway, was still a tough hitting era, and Yaz was still a very good player in '71 and '72. In '71, he was 10th in OBP and in '72 he was 7th in WPA. In '73 and '74 he was a great player. I guess you could say he'd lost some power, but he really only hit many HR in three seasons before that. He was top 5 in times on base in both '73 and '74 and top 10 in OPS+ both seasons, too.
I'm going to quibble here a little bit. I would argue that Yaz's 1973 and 1974 seasons were fine, even very good, but great? No way. "Great" is something better than 9th or 7th in OPS+. "Great" is something you don't see all the time. Guys hitting 15 HRs while playing "meh" defense at 1B, even in the 1970s, happened all the time.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
That's fine, but we are just quibbling here. I had forgotten that Yaz played 1B those years, and you're right that he was meh when he played there. But he was a Gold Glove LF before that, and he was again after that when they moved him back. That Boston played him at the wrong position shouldn't really reflect on Yaz. And as a hitter he was one of the 10 or 12 best in the AL in '73, and one of the 8 or 10 best in '74. I'd give that an A; if you want to give him a B+ instead, I won't fight over it. My larger point is that there really isn't as much of drop off after 1970 that seems to be implied by the OP; no more than most every player experiences after age 30 anyway.
So it sounds like maybe it was a combination of wrist injury and aging. The power numbers really plummeted quickly
Yes, his OPS averaged .969 from 1967-70 and then dropped to .812 the next four years, still very good, but a significant drop. Other than 1977 he was never over .796 in a full season after that.
That's fine, but we are just quibbling here. I had forgotten that Yaz played 1B those years, and you're right that he was meh when he played there. But he was a Gold Glove LF before that, and he was again after that when they moved him back. That Boston played him at the wrong position shouldn't really reflect on Yaz. And as a hitter he was one of the 10 or 12 best in the AL in '73, and one of the 8 or 10 best in '74. I'd give that an A; if you want to give him a B+ instead, I won't fight over it. My larger point is that there really isn't as much of drop off after 1970 that seems to be implied by the OP; no more than most every player experiences after age 30 anyway.
He went from from slugging .592 in 1970 to reaching .470 in his career only once more. That's a massive drop-off. From 40 HRs three times in four years to under 20 the next five. That's a massive drop-off.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
All true, but you're cherry picking. Yaz's drop off from 1967 to 1969 was greater than his drop off from 1970 to 1977. He averaged more HR from 1975-1980 than he did from 1961-1968. How's that for cherry picking?
Every superstar has their own career path. Yaz's peak exceeds his remainder by far more than most other stars, and his peak is shorter than most other stars. So there is a dramatic rise to peak, and a dramatic drop from peak. The question "what happened" with respect to what came after his peak could also be asked about what came before his peak. And neither question would really have an answer. Yaz's drop off from peak was greater than most, because at his peak he was so much better than he had been before his peak - like everyone else he returned to his normal level.
All true, but you're cherry picking. Yaz's drop off from 1967 to 1969 was greater than his drop off from 1970 to 1977. He averaged more HR from 1975-1980 than he did from 1961-1968. How's that for cherry picking?
Every superstar has their own career path. Yaz's peak exceeds his remainder by far more than most other stars, and his peak is shorter than most other stars. So there is a dramatic rise to peak, and a dramatic drop from peak. The question "what happened" with respect to what came after his peak could also be asked about what came before his peak. And neither question would really have an answer. Yaz's drop off from peak was greater than most, because at his peak he was so much better than he had been before his peak - like everyone else he returned to his normal level.
This is spot on. Stats can be cherrypicked in many cases to suit an assertion even when they don't tell the full story.
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.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.