Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 101 to 111 of 111

Thread: Past "Good" players who would be valued more today

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
    But you DO believe that the recent focus on OB% is a major revisionism (agree or disagree). So you agree with me. Nobody is debating (right now) is sabermetrics are right about it.

    So unless you think people have always cared about getting on base the same amount as they do now - there is nothing to argue about.

    That's where you're missing the point: The revisionism is in OVER-emphasizing it. It's always been valued; it's just that nobody was nominating Gene Tenace for the HOF back then.
    "Hey Mr. McGraw! Can I pitch to-day?"

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florissant, Mo.
    Posts
    25,528
    Quote Originally Posted by Victory Faust View Post
    The revisionism is nonsense like "Gene Tenace belongs in the HOF." And, yes, people have said that.

    The irony to me is, most of the people propagating this claim to eschew narratives, but in fact, they're buying into their own narrative. I just had this discussion with some friends on Facebook earlier today: The notion that Gene Tenace wasn't valued is itself a narrative that isn't supported by evidence.

    In the free agency re-entry draft in 1976, the very first player snatched up wasn't Reggie Jackson. Wasn't Rollie Fingers. Wasn't Bobby Grich, Dave Cash, Bert Campaneris, Sal Bando or Richie Hebner. No, the first player taken off the market was Gene Tenace, who was paid the then-handsome sum of $310k per year -- more than the $266k the Padres would later pay Fingers. The following year, the Angels paid RBI man Don Baylor $246k per year; talented lefthander Don Gullett was paid $333k, slightly more than Tenace. That sounds to me like he was valued pretty highly.

    In 1975 and 1976, Tenace got 18 MVP votes each year. That's not a ton, but it's not insignificant -- and not indicative of a player whose talents weren't appreciated.

    Looking at BBRef's similarity scores, Tenace's offensive numbers are similar to:

    Mickey Tettleton (926.1)
    Dan Uggla (898.4)
    Mike Stanley (895.8)
    Rico Petrocelli (895.3)
    Jose Hernandez (889.4)
    Rickie Weeks (870.7)
    Woodie Held (865.9)
    Mike Napoli (864.8)
    Dick McAuliffe (858.0)
    Tony Batista (857.7)

    Now, is there anyone on that list you would say was more highly-regarded in his time than Gene Tenace? Maybe Petrocelli, because he had 3 years of great power numbers, and fans perhaps remembered him for that. But it's not like Tenace was overlooked the way some now claim. I think his contemporaries thought of him as he should have been: Solid but not great. And sure as hell not even close to the HOF unless he bought a ticket.

    The notion that Tenace was underrated until sabermetrics came along is just another narrative. I've yet to see any proof from those who claim they only care about verifiable facts; only people saying he was underrated.

    The fact that he was the first guy snatched up when FA became an option for the owners, and paid more than 6 times the average MLB salary, suggests he was valued more than modern revisionists claim.
    For the record - I do not have Tenace in my HOF. But I do think he was underrated when active. But we all now all of this. We have all said these as suches many times. I refuse to turn this into a debate about OB% - it doesn;t relly fit the connotation of the thread and I;d hate to derail it with stat-talk.

    But of course Tenace was valued highly. I just said not as much. Which you agree with considering how you said the idea of Tenace-A=as-HOFer is also revisionism. JR seems to be the only guy who thinks he was trash. Like you said - he is now considered by many to be a HOFer or close to it. What that the case when he was active? of course not. That is where the perceived "revisionism" comes in and the perception of his OB% was a major part of that. I don't see how any of this is debatable. But again - I have never been talking about the value of OB - just the perception thereof.

    So...We both agree that the perception of OB% has changed. We both agree tht Tenace was not considered a scrub when active. we both agree that his perception has improved over time. I am assuming that we both agree that OB% is the major reasn for that.

    The only thing we disagree on is if the perception chance of OB% is warranted - which isn't even what I (or we ) are talking about here.
    Last edited by Bothrops Atrox; 04-21-2017 at 04:34 AM.
    1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

    1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

    1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


    The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
    The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

  3. #103
    I retract the times I've called Gene Tenace "a borderline major leaguer." That was absolutely hyperbole.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    16,506
    Just blame that guy Jack Daniels
    "By common consent, Ruth was the hardest hitter of history; a fine fielder, if not a finished one; an inspired base runner, seeming to do the right thing without thinking. He had the most perfect co-ordination of any human animal I ever knew." - Hugh Fullerton, 1936 (Chicago sports writer, 1893-1930's)

    ROY / ERA+ Title / Cy Young / WS MVP / HR Title / Gold Glove / Comeback POY / BA Title / MVP / All Star / HOF

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
    For the record - I do not have Tenace in my HOF. But I do think he was underrated when active. But we all now all of this. We have all said these as suches many times. I refuse to turn this into a debate about OB% - it doesn;t relly fit the connotation of the thread and I;d hate to derail it with stat-talk.

    But of course Tenace was valued highly. I just said not as much. Which you agree with considering how you said the idea of Tenace-A=as-HOFer is also revisionism. JR seems to be the only guy who thinks he was trash. Like you said - he is now considered by many to be a HOFer or close to it. What that the case when he was active? of course not. That is where the perceived "revisionism" comes in and the perception of his OB% was a major part of that. I don't see how any of this is debatable. But again - I have never been talking about the value of OB - just the perception thereof.

    So...We both agree that the perception of OB% has changed. We both agree tht Tenace was not considered a scrub when active. we both agree that his perception has improved over time. I am assuming that we both agree that OB% is the major reasn for that.

    The only thing we disagree on is if the perception chance of OB% is warranted - which isn't even what I (or we ) are talking about here.


    I agree with all this.
    "Hey Mr. McGraw! Can I pitch to-day?"

  6. #106
    We're also going to need to have a conversation about why "patience at the plate", isn't exactly a robust item for Cooperstown. Getting a base hit will always be more difficult than a walk, and you don't need plate discipline to be a deadly hitter. In fact, unpredictability can be an asset. Agree with Gene Tenace as a terrific player with those dynastic A's teams of the 70s, but time hasn't changed my opinion of his career.

  7. #107
    I once read a suggestion to the effect that had Hoyt Wilhelm been used as a starting pitcher, he may have wound up as the Greatest pitcher of all time. That using him as a reliever and having him constantly coming in with runners on base, isn't the most logical use of a knuckleball pitcher with a tendency to throw WP's and PB's. (Keeping him buried in the low minors for years probably didn't help him either unless it allowed him to slowly develop his skills.)

    I don't know where I read this, might even have been here on some long forgotten / buried thread. I see some logic in it though and do know he was very effective when given chances to start.

    It seems almost every other player that got mentioned on this thread was chosen for his high OBP (Including my choice of Phillies OF Roy Thomas) so this might be a way to get the thread moving in a different direction and away from Gene Tenace. Unless someone else suggests Steve Garvey is a good candidate for this thread lol !!

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    3,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Calif_Eagle View Post
    I once read a suggestion to the effect that had Hoyt Wilhelm been used as a starting pitcher, he may have wound up as the Greatest pitcher of all time. That using him as a reliever and having him constantly coming in with runners on base, isn't the most logical use of a knuckleball pitcher with a tendency to throw WP's and PB's. (Keeping him buried in the low minors for years probably didn't help him either unless it allowed him to slowly develop his skills.)

    I don't know where I read this, might even have been here on some long forgotten / buried thread. I see some logic in it though and do know he was very effective when given chances to start.

    It seems almost every other player that got mentioned on this thread was chosen for his high OBP (Including my choice of Phillies OF Roy Thomas) so this might be a way to get the thread moving in a different direction and away from Gene Tenace. Unless someone else suggests Steve Garvey is a good candidate for this thread lol !!
    Don't know about the GOAT title for him, but I could see him rivaling Niekro's career
    Rest in Peace Jose Fernandez (1992-2016)

  9. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by Francoeurstein View Post
    Don't know about the GOAT title for him, but I could see him rivaling Niekro's career
    Yes... I don't know about the GOAT title for him either... It seems/feels to me that to be the GOAT as a pitcher, you are going to need overwhelming speed and be able to strike tons of people out. Or to be able to bear down on anyone you face in a clutch situation and know that if you are on top of your game, you can whiff them, no matter who they are. IOW, be a dominating, in command at all times type of pitcher. One that people fear facing.

    But maybe that's just how we all picture it (or I picture it anyway) and that the most effective pitcher of all time would or at least could be someone with off-speed breaking stuff that he can consistently get strikes with, but at the same time, those throws are such that no one can do much with them even when they make contact.

    I wish I could recall where I read that (in my previous post). Going to try his SABR Bio and see what it says.

    EDIT: His SABR Bio falls short of making any claim of him being the GOAT, but it does suggest that had he been a starter he would have had an amazing career. And had he been given a shot earlier, when he was winning 20 for Mooresville in back to back years and probably pitching with almost no difference as he would later in MLB.... who knows?

    Link to Wilhelm's SABR Bio: http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/635428bb
    Last edited by Calif_Eagle; 04-23-2017 at 03:21 PM.

  10. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by Calif_Eagle View Post
    I once read a suggestion to the effect that had Hoyt Wilhelm been used as a starting pitcher, he may have wound up as the Greatest pitcher of all time. That using him as a reliever and having him constantly coming in with runners on base, isn't the most logical use of a knuckleball pitcher with a tendency to throw WP's and PB's. (Keeping him buried in the low minors for years probably didn't help him either unless it allowed him to slowly develop his skills.)

    I don't know where I read this, might even have been here on some long forgotten / buried thread. I see some logic in it though and do know he was very effective when given chances to start.

    It seems almost every other player that got mentioned on this thread was chosen for his high OBP (Including my choice of Phillies OF Roy Thomas) so this might be a way to get the thread moving in a different direction and away from Gene Tenace. Unless someone else suggests Steve Garvey is a good candidate for this thread lol !!
    Catchers fascinate me, and Jim Sundberg and Darrell Porter are two guys I NEVER hear about from the general public, yet they were quite valuable players. They aren't huge OBP guys, but they did pretty well on taking BB. Sundberg a modern version of Ray Schalk, a bit better hitter, a bit longer career, and seems extraordinary on defense. Porter a well-rounded, no outstanding trait backstop. Both overshadowed by all-time greats Johnny Bench, Carlton Fisk, and Gary Carter, as well as famous/quality Thurman Munson and also overlooked Ted Simmons.

  11. #111
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    25,824
    Blog Entries
    1
    I think if Harlond Clift today he would be highly valued. He was a great third baseman (power, walks, RBI man, scored a ton of runs) who played his last season at age 32. He played 12 seasons, only 9 full seasons. From 1934-1942 he averaged:

    .280/.399/.465, 120 OPS+, 21 HR, 91 RBI, 118 R, 35 doubles, 8 triples, 113 BB, 275 TB, 5.0 WAR (per 162 G)

    In 1936 Clift scored 145 runs. I believe that is the most runs scored by a third baseman to this day since John McGraw's 156 runs scored in 1894.

    Harlond Clift General Thread
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •