Most average player
dallasactuary
Posts: 4,337 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Yeah, OK, this is scraping the bottom of the barrel, but I was just wondering which player best personifies the word "average". I don't have any kind of list to work off of, so I just checked players who popped into my head when I thought of "average". Of the players that I checked the winner was ..... {drumroll} ........ Gary Geiger. His name popped into my head because I'm old but I imagine many of you have never heard of him. He was an outfielder for the Red Sox in the early 60's who was more or less done at 26 but hobbled to Atlanta and then Houston where he last played in 1970.
What makes him average:
He was an outfielder of no particular note; he led the AL in assists a couple of times, but nothing else.
At the plate, his only appearance on a leaders list was 10th in walks one year; he did make the top 10 in stolen bases three times (eighth each time).
His career OPS+ was 98; couple that with slightly better than average speed and that's pretty close to spot on average offensively.
His career Wins Above Average, which includes offense and defense, is -0.4, with a season high of 0.6 and a low of -1.1 (in a truly hideous short season with Atlanta).
The only player that I found who competes with Geiger in "averageness" is Tommy Harper. Harper's career OPS+ and WAA were 101 and 0.4, but he had one season - 1970, with a WAA of 5.1 - that was better than most players ever have, so I thought that argued against his winning the title.
Who pops into your head when you hear "average player"?
What makes him average:
He was an outfielder of no particular note; he led the AL in assists a couple of times, but nothing else.
At the plate, his only appearance on a leaders list was 10th in walks one year; he did make the top 10 in stolen bases three times (eighth each time).
His career OPS+ was 98; couple that with slightly better than average speed and that's pretty close to spot on average offensively.
His career Wins Above Average, which includes offense and defense, is -0.4, with a season high of 0.6 and a low of -1.1 (in a truly hideous short season with Atlanta).
The only player that I found who competes with Geiger in "averageness" is Tommy Harper. Harper's career OPS+ and WAA were 101 and 0.4, but he had one season - 1970, with a WAA of 5.1 - that was better than most players ever have, so I thought that argued against his winning the title.
Who pops into your head when you hear "average player"?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
0
Comments
Another worthy contender for the title of Most Average Player is Lloyd Waner. Yes, he's in the HOF but he's there because his brother was great, not because he was. Lifetime OPS+ of 99, and lifetime Wins Above Average of -2.1. More amazingly, in a long career the best OPS+ he ever had was 116; if you feel like a challenge, try to find another outfielder with at least 10 full seasons who never had an OPS+ higher than that. In that sense he was way below average, but he just piled one average season on top of another. He's got a career batting average of .316, but that will only argue against his being average with people who don't understand how meaningless a .316 career batting average can be.
Can you explain how OPS+ gives him a 116 in 1932 and only a 113 in 1929?
Four of his first five years he was good, after that, he is not impressive. Can't see why he got in.
Can you explain how OPS+ gives him a 116 in 1932 and only a 113 in 1929?
Four of his first five years he was good, after that, he is not impressive. Can't see why he got in.
NL OPS in 1929 was 783 and in 1932 it was 724. I don't know why it dropped so much, but Waner's OPS dropped by less than the league average drop so his OPS+ went up.
He got in because his much better brother was in, and because he had a lifetime BA of .316. Both are horrible reasons, but there's really nothing else to explain it.
mark
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......
Can you explain how OPS+ gives him a 116 in 1932 and only a 113 in 1929?
Four of his first five years he was good, after that, he is not impressive. Can't see why he got in.
NL OPS in 1929 was 783 and in 1932 it was 724. I don't know why it dropped so much, but Waner's OPS dropped by less than the league average drop so his OPS+ went up.
He got in because his much better brother was in, and because he had a lifetime BA of .316. Both are horrible reasons, but there's really nothing else to explain it.
Thanks. I never did like OPS+