Manny Ramirez v. Harmon Killebrew

[538280]

I tend to think of all low average, high power guys as huge jerks. There's got to be something very selfish in a player to play the game that way. Look at Dave Kingman.

Actually, that is a very productive way to score runs and win games, even if it doesn't look so good. I would argue that players who play that way are being very unselfish-they are adopting a game which does not look good aesthetically but actually does a lot for the team to win. That is a very unselfish act.

[hellborn]

Man, this is a tough one...I gotta give Killer's stats a boost due to his tough era, and also respect the fact that he could at least handle 3B and the OF well enough for it to not be laughable. I can't fathom Manny at 3B, and I'll bet that Harmon was probably comparable to Manny in the OF. Plus, we haven't seen Manny's decline phase yet.
This may be the most difficult decision for me in a poll yet!!
BTW, I've always heard that Harmon was a wonderful man...good guy and good teammate. I know that he had some financial problems after his career, but nothing shady...just not a good businessman, maybe. People talk about him kind of like they do about Musial, although Killer was probably not as outgoing.

[ChrisLDuncan]

So who's better here, for Manny project his career value.

[mwiggins]

Manny by a whole bunch. He's ahead of him right now by a little bit, without even projecting further career value.

[leecemark]

--Manny might have a slight edge as a hitter, but he still has a ways to go to catch Harmon's total package. Killebrew was no gem in the field or on the bases, but he has the advantage over Ramirez in those departments. Killer always gave his best effort and was a great team player. He also had more versatitity, handling 1B/3B/LF as the team needed.

[JRB]

Does Ramirez have steroid issues? Most of the sluggers of the last decade seem to So are we comparing Killebrew to Ramirez or Killbrew to Ramirez plus steroids.

Ramirez only has a few hundred games at DH, however it has been an availabvle option throughout his career. DH wasn't used until the very tail end of Killebrew's career. Did having the DH option available throughout his career give Ramirez a little bit of an advantage in compiling his offensive numbers to date? (i.e. when tired or a litte bit injured could take off playing in the field and still get his at bats, etc).

[Skin & Bones]

Does Ramirez have steroid issues? Most of the sluggers of the last decade seem to So are we comparing Killebrew to Ramirez or Killbrew to Ramirez plus steroids.
Ramirez only has a few hundred games at DH, however it has been an availabvle option throughout his career. DH wasn't used until the very tail end of Killebrew's career. Did having the DH option available throughout his career give Ramirez a little bit of an advantage in compiling his offensive numbers to date? (i.e. when tired or a litte bit injured could take off playing in the field and still get his at bats, etc).

That's nice, just consider everyone a steroid user because in the last decade or so, some players were using. Let's just put an asterisk next to Manny's career numbers because of it. Never the mind that these drugs were developed in the 30's, and used in American sports by as early as the 50's, but the 1990's is when everyone discovered steroids, so Manny might be dirty, while Killebrew is definitely squeaky clean. :/

[mwiggins]

Does Ramirez have steroid issues? Most of the sluggers of the last decade seem to So are we comparing Killebrew to Ramirez or Killbrew to Ramirez plus steroids.

Ramirez only has a few hundred games at DH, however it has been an availabvle option throughout his career. DH wasn't used until the very tail end of Killebrew's career. Did having the DH option available throughout his career give Ramirez a little bit of an advantage in compiling his offensive numbers to date? (i.e. when tired or a litte bit injured could take off playing in the field and still get his at bats, etc).

I don't believe he's ever been linked to them. But he's not really a 'hulk' slugger. He's more of a complete hitter, a Joe DiMaggio. And he's never had a big late-career spike, or really any anamoly-type seasons.

And he's only played 254 games at DH, so I don't think it's been too much of an advantage so far. With his bat, he'd have been in the OF for most of those DH games if he was playing pre-DH. He's not hanging on as a DH.

[JamesWest]

That's nice, just consider everyone a steroid user because in the last decade or so, some players were using.

They will be, like it or not. The players are complicit in the steroid use problem. They could have mucled the Players Association to try yo do something about it but they didn't.

[EvanAparra]

Does Ramirez have steroid issues? Most of the sluggers of the last decade seem to So are we comparing Killebrew to Ramirez or Killbrew to Ramirez plus steroids.


Wow, come on. Every player that hits HR in this era is a user now?? Thats a pretty ridiculous assumption, IMO.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Wow, come on. Every player that hits HR in this era is a user now?? Thats a pretty ridiculous assumption, IMO.

Plus you would think if Manny were taking Roids he'd be a bit better on the base paths.

[EvanAparra]

They will be, like it or not. The players are complicit in the steroid use problem. They could have mucled the Players Association to try yo do something about it but they didn't.

Yeah, your right -- Every player should have asked the Players Assoc. to apply steroid testing earlier because of what others were doing, even if they had nothing to do with it. Its going to be really sad if Manny and others are linked to crap like that -- Its like saying that every MLB player in 1919 should be linked to the White Sox scandal because, hey, they could have been throwing games too -- and they didnt ask MLB to look into it before.. :rolleyes:

[mwiggins]

Plus you would think if Manny were taking Roids he'd be a bit better on the base paths.

Or would hit 50+ HR's at least once in his career. He should get a pass on PED's unless he all of a sudden hits 65 HR's next year.

[leecemark]

Plus you would think if Manny were taking Roids he'd be a bit better on the base paths.


--Why would you think that? Manny's problem is not so much a lack of speed as a lack of concentration/effort. Steroids aren't going to help with that.

[JamesWest]

Yeah, your right -- Every player should have asked the Players Assoc. to apply steroid testing earlier because of what others were doing, even if they had nothing to do with it. Its going to be really sad if Manny and others are linked to crap like that -- Its like saying that every MLB player in 1919 should be linked to the White Sox scandal because, hey, they could have been throwing games too -- and they didnt ask MLB to look into it before.. :rolleyes:

I think that players who were clean should have tried to help police the game. I think they didn't because they we're afraid that big paychecks would get smaller.

As far as 1919, there is no telling how many games were thrown that year. I would wager the total was more than just the World Series.

[leecemark]

I think that players who were clean should have tried to help police the game. I think they didn't because they we're afraid that big paychecks would get smaller.

As far as 1919, there is no telling how many games were thrown that year. I would wager the total was more than just the World Series.

--That is a safe bet. Nobody robs a bank as their first crime. The Black Sox scandal was the culmination of a widespread problem in baseball. How widespread no one can say for sure, but games were being fixed including probably some previous Series games.

[EvanAparra]

--That is a safe bet. Nobody robs a bank as their first crime. The Black Sox scandal was the culmination of a widespread problem in baseball. How widespread no one can say for sure, but games were being fixed including probably some previous Series games.

I agree with this, but holding everyone in the league responsible for it? I wouldn't do that at all, which seems to be what was implied earlier.

[leecemark]

--I also don't think all players should be held accountable for the actions of a few (or even perhaps the many in the case of steroids). I don't think there is enough probable cause to point the finger at Manny or discount his numbers.

[JRB]

I don't believe he's ever been linked to them. But he's not really a 'hulk' slugger. He's more of a complete hitter, a Joe DiMaggio. And he's never had a big late-career spike, or really any anamoly-type seasons.

And he's only played 254 games at DH, so I don't think it's been too much of an advantage so far. With his bat, he'd have been in the OF for most of those DH games if he was playing pre-DH. He's not hanging on as a DH.

Thanks for your informative answer.

[EvanAparra]

What i'm wondering is -- Will sluggers that have not been linked to steroids be thrown into the Steriod Era label in the future and therefore have their numbers discounted?

[leecemark]

--To a certain extent that is sure to be true. Steroids were partially responsible for creating the explosive offensive numbers of the current era and when they are put into historical context that is going to affect the guilty and the innocent alike.

[JamesWest]

--That is a safe bet. Nobody robs a bank as their first crime. The Black Sox scandal was the culmination of a widespread problem in baseball. How widespread no one can say for sure, but games were being fixed including probably some previous Series games.

A big theme of Timothy Gay's biography of Tris Speaker was how corrupt baseball was in that era. There were probably at least half a dozen suspicious Series before 1919 and two or three after 1919.

[KCGHOST]

I give this to Manny right now and it will only become a larger margin as Manny finishes his career.

[ElHalo]

I think it's an insult to Manny that this question is even being asked. Manny is, as of this second, a top 40 all time player in my view. Killer doesn't sniff my top 100. Manny is, easily, the worst defender and baserunner I've ever seen, but there's only so far that can go when he's got a 58 point edge in career batting average.

Aside from the fact that I've always viewed Manny as an extremely likable guy, and Killebrew as somewhat of a jerk.

[leecemark]

--What makes you think Killebrew was a jerk? He was still playing when I started watching the game and was often referred to as the nicest man in baseball. I've never heard or read anything that would suggest otherwise.
--Manny is a much better hitter for average than Harmon, but Killebrew had more power and drew more walks. The total package was worth about the same and Killebrew has more career value at this point.

[EvanAparra]

Out of curiosity, how did Killbrew have more power? Manny trounces him in slugging and has a 14 point edge in OPS+.

[leecemark]

--If you are looking at raw slugging that is very misleading. Manny is playing in the biggest power era ever and in a hitters park. Killebrew played in an extreme pitchers era and a nuetral park. Killebrew led the league in HR 6 times to Ramirez once. His isolated power was also better (a bigger chunk of Manny's slugging comes from BA).

[EvanAparra]

--If you are looking at raw slugging that is very misleading. Manny is playing in the biggest power era ever and in a hitters park. Killebrew played in an extreme pitchers era and a nuetral park. Killebrew led the league in HR 6 times to Ramirez once. His isolated power was also better (a bigger chunk of Manny's slugging comes from BA).

Right -- But OPS+ adjusts for the rest of the league (era) -- Also, Manny's slugging at fenway is .605 and career is .600 -- Not too much of a difference.
Killebrew also had a higher slugging percentage at home than he did on the road.

Granted Killebrew led the league more in HRs, but I think Fenway actually takes HRs away from manny as opposed to giving him more --- Those line drives he hits off the top of the wall would have been HRs in a lot of parks -- Same with going the other way, which he does quite often, Fenway isnt a great place to hit to right field in. (But i realize this cannot be proven, just my specualtion)

[EvanAparra]

But anyway -- I think Ramirez takes this, and its not all that close. He's a much better run creator and I think he will be productive for another 4 years or so.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Granted Killebrew led the league more in HRs, but I think Fenway actually takes HRs away from manny as opposed to giving him more --- Those line drives he hits off the top of the wall would have been HRs in a lot of parks -- Same with going the other way, which he does quite often, Fenway isnt a great place to hit to right field in. (But i realize this cannot be proven, just my specualtion)

I think you're right, the park suited Nomar well but not so much Manny. Manny is a much more versitale hitter than Killebrew was...Killer was mainly a pull guy. I'd say that Manny is the best right handed hitter of this generation...but I still think that A-Rod and Bonds are better players maybe even Jeter.

[DoubleX]

Right -- But OPS+ adjusts for the rest of the league (era) -- Also, Manny's slugging at fenway is .605 and career is .600 -- Not too much of a difference.
Killebrew also had a higher slugging percentage at home than he did on the road.

As is the case with all rate stats, it helps that Manny hasn't hit his decline yet, and he still has 1600 more ABs to catch up with Killebrew. That being said, I doubt Manny will fall behind Killebrew in OPS+, but his decline should make it much closer.

Also, if Killebrew played in this era, with today's small ballparks and muscle building "techniques," he likely challenge 700 homeruns, and that might be a modest estimate. Killebrew is also someone whose offense probably would have benefited if the DH was available to him in his mid 30s and onward. Manny will probably find himself DHing more often than not within the next few years, and that could be as soon as next season if he's traded.

When all is said and done, I'll most likely take Manny. But right now, I have to give the edge to Killebrew, though slight - considering his era, he is one of the premiere power hitters of all time. The fact that he played nearly 800 games at 3B helps his case a little too. Granted, he wasn't a particularly good 3Bman, but his ability to hang there for a number of years gives him some points in this comparison when you consider that Manny plays a below average LF and would likely be spending a ton of time at DH if not for Ortiz being on the team - he did play 137 games at DH for the Red Sox in the two seasons before Ortiz came over, and that probably would have only increased since 2003 if not for Ortiz.

[EvanAparra]

As is the case with all rate stats, it helps that Manny hasn't hit his decline yet, and he still has 1600 more ABs to catch up with Killebrew. That being said, I doubt Manny will fall behind Killebrew in OPS+, but his decline should make it much closer.

Manny doesn't seem like the type of guy that will play past his prime much, if at all. But that's just me.


Also, if Killebrew played in this era, with today's small ballparks and muscle building "techniques," he likely challenge 700 homeruns, and that might be a modest estimate. Killebrew is also someone whose offense probably would have benefited if the DH was available to him in his mid 30s and onward. anny will probably find himself DHing more often than not within the next few years, and that could be as soon as next season if he's traded.

Saying what a player would have done in another era is pure speculation and pretty much has no real data behind it. You're then talking about DHing, which while it may be a knock against Manny and for Brew in the future, it pretty much means nothing now since Manny hasn't DH near enough to really make a difference.


and would likely be spending a ton of time at DH if not for Ortiz being on the team - he did play 137 games at DH for the Red Sox in the two seasons before Ortiz came over, and that probably would have only increased since 2003 if not for Ortiz

So? Who cares that he "would have" played DH if Ortiz wasn't around? Why does that matter at all? He didn't, and thats what matters. I know you're a believer of the thinking that if a player DHs he will hit better than if he was in the field -- So if you're going to use the arguement that Killebrew would have benefitted from it, then Manny would have as well. Who knows the difference in numbers if Manny would have DHed his entire career?

[ChrisLDuncan]

Manny doesn't seem like the type of guy that will play past his prime much, if at all. But that's just me.


Well he's not much on "playing" in his prime either now is he Evan?

;)

[ChrisLDuncan]

Also, if Killebrew played in this era, with today's small ballparks and muscle building "techniques," he likely challenge 700 homeruns, and that might be a modest estimate. Killebrew is also someone whose offense probably would have benefited if the DH was available to him in his mid 30s and onward. Manny will probably find himself DHing more often than not within the next few years, and that could be as soon as next season if he's traded.


Well HRs aren't everything, Manny is a much more complete hitter. Nice swing too, also look at his RBI numbers the dude straight produces. Also Killebrew wasn't exactly Brooks Robinson at third nor was he Bonds in Left field...I'd DH Killebrew too.

[DoubleX]

Saying what a player would have done in another era is pure speculation and pretty much has no real data behind it. You're then talking about DHing, which while it may be a knock against Manny and for Brew in the future, it pretty much means nothing now since Manny hasn't DH near enough to really make a difference.

So era shouldn't matter? I guess then all the best offensive players played in the past 10 years and in the 1920s? The conditions and rules (heightened mound) of the 1960s depressed offense, it's undeniable - the conditions of the past 15 years have raised offense. If you're not going to factor in era, then it's not even worth making these comparisons because you'd just be going by raw statistics, that on their face, do not tell the whole story.


So? Who cares that he "would have" played DH if Ortiz wasn't around? Why does that matter at all? He didn't, and thats what matters. I know you're a believer of the thinking that if a player DHs he will hit better than if he was in the field -- So if you're going to use the arguement that Killebrew would have benefitted from it, then Manny would have as well. Who knows the difference in numbers if Manny would have DHed his entire career?

I was actually using the argument that it should be held against Manny - the only reason he's not a DH is because an even worse fielding slugger is on his team - the fact that he played 137 games at DH before Ortiz came indicates that the Red Sox were starting to think of him as a DH. Killebrew, on the otherhand, could play 3B - he wasn't great at 3B, but it's to his credit and enhances his value that he could play 800 games there. Manny is a poor defensive corner OFer, and the positional adjustment makes something of a difference. Ultimately, it won't really matter as I think Manny's hitting will be the whole story here, I just give Killebrew the slight edge because we have a complete picture of his career, and that is enough to break at this point what is otherwise a very close comparison, IMO. In a year or two, I could see putting Manny ahead.

But like I said (and it seems you missed this), when all is said and done I'll probably take Manny, but right now, I give the slight edge to Killebrew.

[DoubleX]

Well HRs aren't everything, Manny is a much more complete hitter. Nice swing too, also look at his RBI numbers the dude straight produces. Also Killebrew wasn't exactly Brooks Robinson at third nor was he Bonds in Left field...I'd DH Killebrew too.

RBI are very misleading here. First, it is a team oriented stat and Manny has been lucky to have teammates like Kenny Lofton, Roberto Alomar, Albert Belle, Jim Thome, David Justice, David Oritz, and Johnny Damon, either setting the table for him, or protecting him for his entire career. Now I'm not saying Manny isn't a great hitter, but when it comes to driving it runs, it helps when you're surrounded by so much other great talent. The only thing Killebrew had like that was Tony Oliva and then Rod Carew for a few years.

Second - fewer runs were scored across the board in the 1960s - it was an era of extremely depressed offense and in a given year, typically only a few guys would have 100+ RBI. Manny, on the other hand, plays in an era of much heightened offense, meaning more runs scored, meaning more opportunities for a middle of the order guy like Manny to drive in runs. Nowadays, many teams have more 100 RBI players that some years in the 60s did. Just consider that Mickey Mantle, as a great a hitter as he was in as great of lineups as he was in, only drove in 100+ RBI just 4 times in his career.

Also, Killebrew led the league three times in RBI, Manny has done it once, so that should indicate that in the context of his era, Manny's RBI production doesn't stand out as Killebrew's did. Now imagine would Killebrew's RBI totals might have looked like if he had guys like Albert Belle, Roberto Alomar, Jim Thome, and David Ortiz in his lineup for his entire career?

[EvanAparra]

So era shouldn't matter? I guess then all the best offensive players played in the past 10 years and in the 1920s? The conditions and rules (heightened mound) of the 1960s depressed offense, it's undeniable - the conditions of the past 15 years have raised offense. If you're not going to factor in era, then it's not even worth making these comparisons because you'd just be going by raw statistics, that on their face, do not tell the whole story.

I don't see how you got that from what I said. I said trying to predict what Killebrew would have done in this era, especially when you're going to talk about the way people build up muscle (or something like that) is useless. If you want to translate statistics than that's fine, because you obviously have to... I dont get how you decided that I'm just going to raw stats or that you can't take stats in the context they were achieved in, because I didnt state that.


I was actually using the argument that it should be held against Manny - the only reason he's not a DH is because an even worse fielding slugger is on his team - the fact that he played 137 games at DH before Ortiz came indicates that the Red Sox were starting to think of him as a DH. Killebrew, on the otherhand, could play 3B - he wasn't great at 3B, but it's to his credit that he could play 800 games there. Manny is a poor defensive corner OFer, and the positional adjustment makes something of a difference. Ultimately, it won't really matter as I think Manny's hitting will be the whole story here, I just don't think he's quite there yet.

If you're using it showing that he's a terrible fielder, than I know that and anyone that sees Manny field knows that. He's terrible. But saying that he should be a DH, or that they were 'thinking' about him as a DH means nothing when comparing statistics.

The 800 games does give Killebrew more credit offensively, but he wasn't a good defensive 3Bman so he gets no credit from me there. However you are right that positional adjustment makes a difference there, and i'm positive Killebrew was a better fielder so he gets credit there as well.


But like I said (and it seems you missed this), when all is said and done I'll probably take Manny, but right now, I give the slight edge to Killebrew

Didn't miss it, just addressing some of your reasoning behind it -- I like that Manny is a more complete hitter than Killebrew, complete with the same type of power Killebrew flashed, so i'll take Manny -- the next few years should make this an easy choice of Manny for most.

[EvanAparra]

I dont think having Ortiz in front of him is really helping his RBI totals very much -- he gets on base a lot, but he cleans up in front of Manny a lot as well...

But you're right in the RBI aspect, Killebrew was an RBI machine in his day, moreso than Manny.

[DoubleX]

I don't see how you got that from what I said. I said trying to predict what Killebrew would have done in this era, especially when you're going to talk about the way people build up muscle (or something like that) is useless. If you want to translate statistics than that's fine, because you obviously have to... I dont get how you decided that I'm just going to raw stats or that you can't take stats in the context they were achieved in, because I didnt state that.

It's probably the same way you seem to have been misconstruing my words so often lately...:rolleyes:


If you're using it showing that he's a terrible fielder, than I know that and anyone that sees Manny field knows that. He's terrible. But saying that he should be a DH, or that they were 'thinking' about him as a DH means nothing when comparing statistics.

This is more about just "comparing statistics." When we're talking about who the better player is, the player that could play a passable 3B for 800 games has some value that a player that plays a terrible LF and would be a DH if not for the presence of a more terrible fielder on his team, does not have. I pointed out the 137 gamaes he played at DH in 2001 and 2002 to illustrate that he'd probably be a DH by now if not for Ortiz. When a team starts playing a 29 year old nearly half the time at DH, I think it's a pretty strong indication of how they value his fielding and intend to use him down the stretch. The Red Sox struck gold with Ortiz and the lesser of two evils was to have Manny in the field - but if not for Ortiz, Manny would likely be the regular DH. So this is really just a value argument, not a statistical one,


The 800 games does give Killebrew more credit offensively, but he wasn't a good defensive 3Bman so he gets no credit from me there. However you are right that positional adjustment makes a difference there, and i'm positive Killebrew was a better fielder so he gets credit there as well.

Didn't miss it, just addressing some of your reasoning behind it -- I like that Manny is a more complete hitter than Killebrew, complete with the same type of power Killebrew flashed, so i'll take Manny -- the next few years should make this an easy choice of Manny for most.

Yay, we agree. But I still don't get why you're seeming so contentious. I said it was very close and explained why the positional adjustment and Killebrew having a complete career picture give him the slight edge for me at this point. That's just my preference and I believe that ultimately, Manny will be ahead.

[DoubleX]

I dont think having Ortiz in front of him is really helping his RBI totals very much -- he gets on base a lot, but he cleans up in front of Manny a lot as well...

That's true - Ortiz is likely stealing RBI from Manny, but then again, Manny's best run production with the Red Sox has been since 2004 - when Ortiz really took off. He didn't drive in runs as prolifically in his first three years, so the increased production, including his two best seasons since he was with the Indians, could have a direct correlation with Ortiz being in the lineup.

Still, Ortiz receives the bigger benefit of the lineup positioning in that he gets Manny's protection - the Red Sox will miss that presence if they trade Manny. It's the toughest 1-2 punch in baseball. If Ortiz doesn't cleanup, the pitcher then has to get through Manny.

[EvanAparra]

I pointed out the 137 gamaes he played at DH in 2001 and 2002 to illustrate that he'd probably be a DH by now if not for Ortiz. When a team starts playing a 29 year old nearly half the time at DH, I think it's a pretty strong indication of how they value his fielding and intend to use him down the stretch. The Red Sox struck gold with Ortiz and the lesser of two evils was to have Manny in the field - but if not for Ortiz, Manny would likely be the regular DH. So this is really just a value argument, not a statistical one,

I dont see how his value is affected in this argument though. He sucks in the field, this I know -- He probably would be a DH if the Sox hadn't gotten Ortiz, I know this as well. But he's not a DH, and hasn't been a DH -- I had gotten that you were discounting his numbers because he could have been a DH, correct me if i'm wrong there.




Yay, we agree. But I still don't get why you're seeming so contentious. I said it was very close and explained why the positional adjustment and Killebrew having a complete career picture give him the slight edge for me at this point. That's just my preference and I believe that ultimately, Manny will be ahead.

I'm not trying to be contentious, although I know I come off that way most of the time. I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong here, you're right, it's your preference.

[DoubleX]

I dont see how his value is affected in this argument though. He sucks in the field, this I know -- He probably would be a DH if the Sox hadn't gotten Ortiz, I know this as well. But he's not a DH, and hasn't been a DH -- I had gotten that you were discounting his numbers because he could have been a DH, correct me if i'm wrong there.

Ok, well let's ignore the DH thing then - when we're talking about the better player, we're not just talking about statistics. So when one player can play a passable 3B for 800 games and another can only play a terrible corner OF, the player that could play 3B has some value that the corner OFer does not. By itself, it is not determinative, it's just one of many factors to be considered, and in this case is a factor that tips towards Killebrew, IMO. I'd say the defensive adjustment Killebrew gets makes up some of the ground he loses to Manny on BA.

I only brought the DH into things to illustrate how terrible Manny is in the field, but you seem to know that anyway. :)

If I had to break things down simply, I'd do it this way:

Power: Killebrew
Batting Average: Ramirez
Discipline: Killebrew (Both draw walks and strikeout a lot, but Killebrew drew more walks and struckout less)
Overall Hitting: Ramirez
Fielding: Killebrew

This makes it very close to me, so the deciding thing is that I give Killebrew the edge because Manny's career is still a work in progress. But I accept it as pretty much a forgone conclusion that Manny will come out ahead when he's done.

[EvanAparra]

Do you know how Killebrew was as an outfielder defensively? Why did he move to the OF? Injury?

[Edgartohof]

Right now, I have Killebrew above Manny. Killebrew is 64th on my all-time list, while Manny is just out of my top 100 - 101st actually (I haven't totally adjusted for 2006, so he should be mid 90's after the adjustment).

Though give Manny a couple more years and he should be in the top 50, and probably should be even higher than I have him now.

[JRB]

I think it's an insult to Manny that this question is even being asked. Manny is, as of this second, a top 40 all time player in my view. Killer doesn't sniff my top 100. Manny is, easily, the worst defender and baserunner I've ever seen, but there's only so far that can go when he's got a 58 point edge in career batting average.

Aside from the fact that I've always viewed Manny as an extremely likable guy, and Killebrew as somewhat of a jerk.

El Halo: I initially asked the question, becaue I haven't followed his career and didn't know many details about him. If you want to start comparing players who have put up impressive numbers in the last decade or so with players of the past, I think it is a prudent first question to ask whether there are any steroid issues. From the answers that mwiggins and leecemark gave I gather that isn't an issue with Ramirez, which is to his credit. However, if you want to strike the "how dare he ask the question" pose that's fine, though didn't Palmiero use that same pose at the Congressional hearings? I do know a little bit about Killebrew, and he was a mild mannered very low key person, who appears to have been well liked and respected. I think you must have Killebrew confused with the old time rockabilly star Jerry Lee Lewis who shared the nickname "Killer" with Killebrew, but who was cut from much different cloth. Since there doesn't appear to be any steroid issues with Ramirez, I can see, based on the stats, where you might have a strong argument in his favor. Killebrew by the way was a 'bonus baby" which as I understand it means he had to sit on the bench in the major leagues for his first five years instead of getting a year or two worth of seasoning in the minors, and may have prevented him from getting off to an even more productive start a year or two earlier than he did. Incidentally, I would recommend that if you ever have the opportunity to watch a clip of Killebrew hitting you do so. With his short compact swing, watching Killebrew hit a home run was one of the most asthetically pleasing sights in all of sports.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Aside from the fact that I've always viewed Manny as an extremely likable guy, and Killebrew as somewhat of a jerk.

Killebrew a jerk, how is that. I followed this guy almost his whole career. Got along great with teammates. While playing and even in later years, soft spoken, never heard him mouth off while playing or even in retirement, did I miss something.

[mwiggins]

Out of curiosity, how did Killbrew have more power? Manny trounces him in slugging and has a 14 point edge in OPS+.

Manny has a better career relative slugging % - 1.37 to 1.30 - but a) Manny has yet to experience his decline and b) his slugging % is driven much more from his BA than was Harmons'. Manny's realtive BA is 1.14, Harmon's is .98. His high slugging % is from power hitting, not high average hitting PLUG power hitting like Manny's is.

That, plus as Leecemark said, Harmon's HR #'s are a lot better, for his era, than are Manny's.

[DoubleX]

Do you know how Killebrew was as an outfielder defensively? Why did he move to the OF? Injury?

I don't know how he was defensively in the OF or why he moved, but he only played 470 games there. The bulk of his non-3B playing time came at 1B, where he was probably slightly above average. Interestingly, after playing 3B early in his career, he moved back there for a season in the middle of his career, and then again for a few years near the end again - not sure what that means. After that, injuries limited him and that's where the DH would have been helpful.

Anyway, given that Killebrew was not really an OFer, it makes this comparison kind of difficult. Ramirez and Killebrew are two very different types of ballplayers.

[JRB]

Interestingly, after playing 3B early in his career, he moved back there for a season in the middle of his career, and then again for a few years near the end again - not sure what that means.

DoubleX: The reason Killebrew moved back to third base in 1965-66 was because the Twins wanted to get Don Mincher's bat in the lineup more often, especially if a right handed pitcher was starting. Since Mincher played first base exclusively, when they wanted him in the lineup they moved Killebrew to third. When a left hander was starting the Twins often used Rich Rollins at third and had Killebrew at first, so Killebrew shuffled back and forth between first and third. Killebrew's versatility came in handy and made the Twins stronger offensively as a result.

[538280]

I've got to go with Killebrew. Manny may very well catch him, and he has been a better hitter to this point is his career, but Killebrew still has a large career value advantage, and was a better defensive player. Manny could pass him if he gets up to Killebrew's level of longevity.

Right now I think Killebrew is a very clear choice though.

[dl4060]

--Why would you think that? Manny's problem is not so much a lack of speed as a lack of concentration/effort. Steroids aren't going to help with that.

True. Manny is actually known as a very hard working scientific player, with a bat in his hands. He works tirelessly at hitting, and really studies pitchers. He does not hustle or concentrate on the basepaths or in the field.

[ChrisLDuncan]

RBI are very misleading here. First, it is a team oriented stat and Manny has been lucky to have teammates like Kenny Lofton, Roberto Alomar, Albert Belle, Jim Thome, David Justice, David Oritz, and Johnny Damon, either setting the table for him, or protecting him for his entire career. Now I'm not saying Manny isn't a great hitter, but when it comes to driving it runs, it helps when you're surrounded by so much other great talent. The only thing Killebrew had like that was Tony Oliva and then Rod Carew for a few years.

Second - fewer runs were scored across the board in the 1960s - it was an era of extremely depressed offense and in a given year, typically only a few guys would have 100+ RBI. Manny, on the other hand, plays in an era of much heightened offense, meaning more runs scored, meaning more opportunities for a middle of the order guy like Manny to drive in runs. Nowadays, many teams have more 100 RBI players that some years in the 60s did. Just consider that Mickey Mantle, as a great a hitter as he was in as great of lineups as he was in, only drove in 100+ RBI just 4 times in his career.

Also, Killebrew led the league three times in RBI, Manny has done it once, so that should indicate that in the context of his era, Manny's RBI production doesn't stand out as Killebrew's did. Now imagine would Killebrew's RBI totals might have looked like if he had guys like Albert Belle, Roberto Alomar, Jim Thome, and David Ortiz in his lineup for his entire career?

Well I know that RBIs are a misleading stat, about as misleading as BA; however if you have a high OPS and BA and still drive in a lot of runs, finish in the top five six times with still time left to go, I would venture to say that you are a productive player. RBIs may be overrated by the average baseball fan, but they are underrated around here.

Yeah Killer did lead the league more, but on his career he only has 68 more than Manny. Manny's clutch, he drives in a ton of runs and I still think he's a better run producer than Killer was. Look, I'm a Yankees fan just like you but I have to give this battle to Manny.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I've got to go with Killebrew. Manny may very well catch him, and he has been a better hitter to this point is his career, but Killebrew still has a large career value advantage, and was a better defensive player. Manny could pass him if he gets up to Killebrew's level of longevity.

Right now I think Killebrew is a very clear choice though.

For career value lets see. In six less seasons Manny has:

103 less HRs

20 less hits

68 less RBIs

55 MORE runs created

So I don't think that Killer at all a clear choice. At best it's a toss up. Also look at Manny's averages

[mwiggins]

Well I know that RBIs are a misleading stat, about as misleading as BA; however if you have a high OPS and BA and still drive in a lot of runs, finish in the top five six times with still time left to go, I would venture to say that you are a productive player. RBIs may be overrated by the average baseball fan, but they are underrated around here.

Yeah Killer did lead the league more, but on his career he only has 68 more than Manny. Manny's clutch, he drives in a ton of runs and I still think he's a better run producer than Killer was. Look, I'm a Yankees fan just like you but I have to give this battle to Manny.

You can't just compare raw RBI totals, Chris. Manny played in an era with much more scoring than did Harmon. Not once has the American league average per game scoring been below 4.71 in Manny's career. Whereas the league scoring per game in Harmon's time was only ONCE above 4.5 per game. And it was below 4.00 6 of his 17 years as a regular player.

If you put into the contex of the offensive levels of their era, Harmon's 140 RBI season in 1969 was more impressive than Manny's 165 RBI season in 1999. Harmon drove in the # of runs an average team would score in 34 games in 1969, while Manny only drive in the # of runs an average team would score in 32 games in 1999.

Harmon was clearly a better RBI man than Manny.

[DoubleX]

Yeah Killer did lead the league more, but on his career he only has 68 more than Manny. Manny's clutch, he drives in a ton of runs and I still think he's a better run producer than Killer was. Look, I'm a Yankees fan just like you but I have to give this battle to Manny.

But see, objectively, it's not clear whether Manny is the better RBI producer. As I mentioned, he's been in much better lineups than Killebrew and has played in an era where more runs are scored across the board. As I mentioned, nowadays you can have individual teams with more 100 RBI players than there were in the entire American League in some seasons in the 60s. Measuring run production is just on a totally different scale in the 60s then it has been in the last 15 years. Killebrew stood out more on his scale than Manny has on his.

[DoubleX]

You can't just compare raw RBI totals, Chris. Manny played in an era with much more scoring than did Harmon. Not once has the American league average per game scoring been below 4.71 in Manny's career. Whereas the league scoring per game in Harmon's time was only ONCE above 4.5 per game. And it was below 4.00 6 of his 17 years as a regular player.

If you put into the contex of the offensive levels of their era, Harmon's 140 RBI season in 1969 was more impressive than Manny's 165 RBI season in 1999. Harmon drove in the # of runs an average team would score in 34 games in 1969, while Manny only drive in the # of runs an average team would score in 32 games in 1999.

Harmon was clearly a better RBI man than Manny.

Nicely put. :)

[DoubleX]

For career value lets see. In six less seasons Manny has:

103 less HRs

20 less hits

68 less RBIs

55 MORE runs created

So I don't think that Killer at all a clear choice. At best it's a toss up. Also look at Manny's averages

Again, you're not factoring in era at all. Killebrew played at a time when offense was extremely depressed - Manny has played at a time when offense is extremely bolstered. Killebrew is objectively one of the best power hitters of all time. If he played today, I think it would safe to say that he'd challenge 700 homeruns, and that could be a modest estimate.

[leecemark]

--If Killebrew was playing in the current environment he would be Mark McGwire with much better durability, longevity and character. That trumps what Manny has to offer IMO.

[honestiago]

Harmon played during a pitcher's era. Manny played during a HR explosion. RBIs are also a misleading stat. Manny's been on good offensive teams. Killer also started out his career is a tough HR park.

[yanks0714]

Aside from the fact that I've always viewed Manny as an extremely likable guy, and Killebrew as somewhat of a jerk.

Huh???
Killebrew as somewhat of a jerk???? Do you know anything about baseball???? Everything, absolutely everything, I've ever read about Harmon is that he is one of the nicest men to ever play the game. For you to come online, with no evidence whatsoever and characterize Killebrew as a "jerk" is plain outright derogatory.

For a good view on Harmon Killebrew read "In the Cool of the Evening" about the Twins 1965 pennant winners.

Ramirez may well be likable but there are plenty of stories about his acting like a "jerk".

Of course, for someone who never heard of Joe Morgan until a short time ago I can expect this type post.

[yanks0714]

Out of curiosity, how did Killbrew have more power? Manny trounces him in slugging and has a 14 point edge in OPS+.

For starters look at the era's they played in. Killebrew played in the pitching dominated era of the 60's during his prime. Manny plays in the biggest offensive era baseball has seen in contemporary times.

I voted for Manny but give Harmon his just due. Harmon walked a lot and hit for raw power. He was versatile enought to play 1B, 3B, and LF although he'd never be confused for a GG defensively.
Manny is plain out and out a good hitter. He's decent defensively when he doesn't have his head where it never shines. manny kind of makes me think of what I've read of Babe Herman from the 1930's. Great hitter but prone to defensive and base running gaffe's.

[yanks0714]

True. Manny is actually known as a very hard working scientific player, with a bat in his hands. He works tirelessly at hitting, and really studies pitchers. He does not hustle or concentrate on the basepaths or in the field.

We talking Manny Ramirez......or Ted Williams. :cool:

[538280]

For career value lets see. In six less seasons Manny has:

103 less HRs

20 less hits

68 less RBIs

55 MORE runs created

So I don't think that Killer at all a clear choice. At best it's a toss up. Also look at Manny's averages

You need to factor in the eras in which they played. Manny having more raw counting stats is exactly the sort of thing you want to get away from when you have a comparison like this, with one guy from a very high run environment and the other from a very low one.

It is true that Manny's era adjusted rates (such as OPS+) are still better than Killebrew's, but Manny also hasn't had a decline period to go through and it's still anyone's guess whether he will end up lasting as long as Killebrew did. Killebrew is also a better fielder than Manny. Killebrew is still the clear choice here IMO.

[AlecBoy006]

You need to factor in the eras in which they played. Manny having more raw counting stats is exactly the sort of thing you want to get away from when you have a comparison like this, with one guy from a very high run environment and the other from a very low one.

It is true that Manny's era adjusted rates (such as OPS+) are still better than Killebrew's, but Manny also hasn't had a decline period to go through and it's still anyone's guess whether he will end up lasting as long as Killebrew did. Killebrew is also a better fielder than Manny. Killebrew is still the clear choice here IMO.


I would have to agree.

[ChrisLDuncan]

You need to factor in the eras in which they played. Manny having more raw counting stats is exactly the sort of thing you want to get away from when you have a comparison like this, with one guy from a very high run environment and the other from a very low one.

It is true that Manny's era adjusted rates (such as OPS+) are still better than Killebrew's, but Manny also hasn't had a decline period to go through and it's still anyone's guess whether he will end up lasting as long as Killebrew did. Killebrew is also a better fielder than Manny. Killebrew is still the clear choice here IMO.

Okay if you put a great value on longevity and do huge LQ than Killebrew is the better player, but how can anyone who has seen Manny deny his offensive prowlice? Or say that Killebrew was better?

[AstrosFan]

Here's a chart to compare their OPS+ throughout their career:


Harmon Killebrew

Year Age AB OPS+ CarAB CarOPS+
1954 18 13 121 13 121
1955 19 80 76 93 82
1956 20 99 80 192 81
1957 21 31 139 223 89
1958 22 31 14 254 80
1959 23 546 137 800 119
1960 24 442 145 1242 128
1961 25 541 161 1783 138
1962 26 552 138 2335 138
1963 27 515 147 2850 140
1964 28 577 153 3427 142
1965 29 401 146 3828 142
1966 30 569 158 4397 144
1967 31 547 174 4944 148
1968 32 295 132 5239 147
1969 33 555 179 5794 150
1970 34 527 161 6321 151
1971 35 500 138 6821 150
1972 36 433 138 7254 149
1973 37 248 95 7502 147
1974 38 333 90 7835 145
1975 39 312 93 8147 143

Manny Ramirez

Year Age AB OPS+ CarAB CarOPS+
1993 21 53 33 53 33
1994 22 290 124 343 110
1995 23 484 148 827 132
1996 24 550 145 1377 137
1997 25 561 143 1938 139
1998 26 571 146 2509 141
1999 27 522 174 3031 146
2000 28 439 185 3470 151
2001 29 529 162 3999 153
2002 30 436 190 4435 156
2003 31 569 160 5004 157
2004 32 568 152 5572 156
2005 33 554 156 6126 156
2006 34 449 168 6575 157


Anything with "Car" on it designates career stats through that point in their careers, everything else is seasonal. It doesn't prove who was better, but it's a fun chart to look at for comparison.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Anyone recall, the strike zone as it was in the book and as it was called by the umps in Killebrew's time. Try the shoulders to the knees. What do we have today, pitches only a bit above the belt are often called a ball, almost all the time. Todays strike zone is at best a joke.

Recall that the mound was 5 inches higher in Killebrew's time.
Expansion, some pitchers in todays game would still be riding busses in the minor league if not for all the teams in todays MLB.

I think if were going to start talking who played in the better hitting era, it's Manny. Not taking anything away from Manny, he is awesome at the plate but he certainly plays in an era thats more favorable for the hitter.

[538280]

Okay if you put a great value on longevity and do huge LQ than Killebrew is the better player, but how can anyone who has seen Manny deny his offensive prowlice? Or say that Killebrew was better?

I see Manny very often and I can't deny his offensive prowess. He is a GREAT offensive player and great to watch. I think he is an underrated fielder as well, he is not really very good, but he is not the joke he's made out to be.

LQ has very little to do with why I have Killiebrew ahead of Manny-they get about the same LQ boost. When did I talk about LQ?

[ElHalo]

--What makes you think Killebrew was a jerk? He was still playing when I started watching the game and was often referred to as the nicest man in baseball. I've never heard or read anything that would suggest otherwise.

I tend to think of all low average, high power guys as huge jerks. There's got to be something very selfish in a player to play the game that way. Look at Dave Kingman.

[yanks0714]

I tend to think of all low average, high power guys as huge jerks. There's got to be something very selfish in a player to play the game that way. Look at Dave Kingman.

This is almost as absurb as your excuse about omitting Joe Morgan and explaining it by saying you had never heard of him.:noidea

[538280]

Just bringing these threads up-posts made earlier today are at the beginning of the thread.

[Chisox]

I tend to think of all low average, high power guys as huge jerks. There's got to be something very selfish in a player to play the game that way. Look at Dave Kingman.
Yeah, creating automatic runs by scoring yourself and everyone on board is certainly something one should be ashamed of.:hp :hp :hp

[Edgartohof]

I think [Manny] is an underrated fielder as well, he is not really very good, but he is not the joke he's made out to be.

Well, I have seen quite a bit of him as well, and in truth, he isn't good - at all. And I have to say that there is a reason he is considered so bad - because he IS that bad. Maybe if he actually TRIED all of the time, then he might only be bad, but because he doesn't, he plain stinks out there. It takes a lot for a player to be THAT bad out there, but Manny has turned it into an artform. I give more credit to the guy who at least tries and isn't great, than to the guy who doesn't give a rip, and is just as bad. And there is something behind that, not just my thought. Having a player hustling all the time is a good thing - it keeps everyone in the game. You don't want to feel demoralized when the ball goes out to that one player on your team who just doesn't care.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Now Killer is the better teammate, no one's going to deny that one. However, Manny is much more productive, MUCH, I don't see right now how Killer is as high as he is. Only batted above .280 twice, never above .290. Only 7 times had an OPS+ above 150, whereas Manny's has only been under four times.

[538280]

Now Killer is the better teammate, no one's going to deny that one. However, Manny is much more productive, MUCH, I don't see right now how Killer is as high as he is. Only batted above .280 twice,

Bringing up batting average to bring down Harmon Killebrew is not much of an arguement. That obviously is not why Harmon Killebrew was a great player. Manny Ramirez has been a better hitter than Killebrew through this point in his career and will probably remain that way. However, as of right now Killebre has MUCH more longevity, and it is not even a certain thing whether Manny will maintain his rates if he lasts as long as Killebrew did. Killebrew is also the better defensive player.


never above .290. Only 7 times had an OPS+ above 150, whereas Manny's has only been under four times.

Manny's OPS+ has been over 150 8 times. Real big advantage there. :rolleyes:

[ChrisLDuncan]

Bringing up batting average to bring down Harmon Killebrew is not much of an arguement. That obviously is not why Harmon Killebrew was a great player. Manny Ramirez has been a better hitter than Killebrew through this point in his career and will probably remain that way. However, as of right now Killebre has MUCH more longevity, and it is not even a certain thing whether Manny will maintain his rates if he lasts as long as Killebrew did. Killebrew is also the better defensive player.



Manny's OPS+ has been over 150 8 times. Real big advantage there. :rolleyes:

Yeah but how many more seasons did Killebrew play? SIX MORE! Keep that in mind, now look at Manny's counting stats. With the LQ bring Killer's up a little bit (alot if you want) Manny still isn't that far behind in counting stats with more time to play.

Also Manny had an OPS of 148 once aswell, Killer had a 147...also I would say that Manny has a much more clutch presence than Killebrew

[Chisox]

Yeah but how many more seasons did Killebrew play? SIX MORE! Keep that in mind, now look at Manny's counting stats. With the LQ bring Killer's up a little bit (alot if you want) Manny still isn't that far behind in counting stats with more time to play.
and how many of those six seasons did he produce a 150+OPS+ 1, in 1970, his SIXTH TO LAST season.


Manny had an OPS of 148 once aswell, Killer had a 147...
Whoopie, one point.
Killebrew had a 143OPS+ in 9,831 PA playing a decent first and third, Manny has a 157 OPS+ in 7,783 PA playing an awful RF, LF, and DH.

also I would say that Manny has a much more clutch presence than Killebrewwho cares? I'm sure you never saw Killebrew play, so how on earth could you possibly be able to compare those?

[ChrisLDuncan]

Well as a Yankees fan I've had to put up with facing Man-Ram, I've never seen Killer , and he's a damn good hitter...I don't even see your point. Instead of bitching why don't you provide an argument see Chris, 538280, he disagrees with me frequently...however he has a method to his madness.

Here's Manny's and Harmon's splits

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=ramirma02&year=00 Manny's

http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/killeha01.shtml
Killebrew's

Manny has the edge in clutch stats, and after he got to Boston he started performing in the post season, hell ask Evan about Manny's clutch status.

[leecemark]

What exactly are "clutch stats"?

[ChrisLDuncan]

What exactly are "clutch stats"?

The ones listed down in the splits.

[Edgartohof]

The ones listed down in the splits.

I don't believe there is a true concensus on what "clutch" is. In my opinion, clutch hitting can occur at any time, not just bottom of the 7th, 2 men on, 1 out, down my a run. So a small set of numbers shown there, don't nessecarily constitute one player being more "clutch" than another.

[ElHalo]

What exactly are "clutch stats"?

Clutch really needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. A single in the fifth inning to break up a no-hitter in a Yankees / Red Sox game in July can be extremely clutch. A walkoff homer in the bottom of the 14th in a Royals-DRays game in September can be not particularly. Context is so key that it's impossible to get a real, good numerical grasp on it.

[Edgartohof]

Clutch really needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Exactly!!!

[ChrisLDuncan]

Clutch really needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. A single in the fifth inning to break up a no-hitter in a Yankees / Red Sox game in July can be extremely clutch. A walkoff homer in the bottom of the 14th in a Royals-DRays game in September can be not particularly. Context is so key that it's impossible to get a real, good numerical grasp on it.

Well I would say when the game is tied that is clutch, breaking a tie in your team's favor, also down a run is another good stat

[ElHalo]

Well I would say when the game is tied that is clutch, breaking a tie in your team's favor, also down a run is another good stat

Not necessarily. In a pointless game at the end of the season that has no effect whatsoever on the pennant race, it's hard to do anything that's clutch, because no matter how good you are, it doesn't matter.