Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bob Boone

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Chadwick
    replied
    Molina was a great pitch framer back in his day. Had MLB teams recognized the value of pitch framing a decade earlier, Molina would have been a starting catcher throughout his career instead of a longtime backup. More to the point, had Molina (with his 64 wRC+) been able to hit, he might warrant a Hall of Fame discussion. That said, whatever his (remarkable) skills, he's got no case.

    FYI, Molina has been the catching instructor for the Angels' farm system since his retirement as a player and is now working with their big league catchers, too.

    Leave a comment:


  • sturg1dj
    replied
    Originally posted by Chadwick View Post
    Career Defensive Value (per FanGraphs), 1967-1997, Catchers

    232.2 Bob Boone (82 wRC+)
    223.7 Jim Sundberg (91)
    222.1 Gary Carter (116)
    161.4 Johnny Bench (125)
    155.1 Tony Pena (83)
    154.5 Rick Dempsey (91)
    134.6 Steve Yeager (82)
    133.2 Carlton Fisk (117)
    128.5 Lance Parrish (105)
    125.1 Ivan Rodriguez (98)

    All of these players had more than 1,950 games caught except for Dempsey, Yeager and I-Rod. Only the first third of Rodriguez’s 21-year career is accounted for above.

    There you go.

    Boone and Sundberg accounted for 13 Gold Glove Awards in a 14-year span (1976-1989). That’s basically half the Gold Gloves at their position split between those two catchers. Had Boone remained in the NL, that total might have been higher.

    I’ve included each catcher’s weighted runs created plus to demonstrate his career average offensive production.

    So that’s what it takes to be a Hall of Famer.

    Sundberg is, in my mind, a better candidate than Boone, particularly with 300 fewer games caught. Yet that’s not saying either belong in Cooperstown.
    looking at fangraphs catching stats I think we need to talk about Jose Molina, holy cow!

    https://www.fangraphs.com/statss.asp...=25&position=C

    Leave a comment:


  • Chadwick
    replied
    Career Defensive Value (per FanGraphs), 1967-1997, Catchers

    232.2 Bob Boone (82 wRC+)
    223.7 Jim Sundberg (91)
    222.1 Gary Carter (116)
    161.4 Johnny Bench (125)
    155.1 Tony Pena (83)
    154.5 Rick Dempsey (91)
    134.6 Steve Yeager (82)
    133.2 Carlton Fisk (117)
    128.5 Lance Parrish (105)
    125.1 Ivan Rodriguez (98)

    All of these players had more than 1,950 games caught except for Dempsey, Yeager and I-Rod. Only the first third of Rodriguez’s 21-year career is accounted for above.

    There you go.

    Boone and Sundberg accounted for 13 Gold Glove Awards in a 14-year span (1976-1989). That’s basically half the Gold Gloves at their position split between those two catchers. Had Boone remained in the NL, that total might have been higher.

    I’ve included each catcher’s weighted runs created plus to demonstrate his career average offensive production.

    So that’s what it takes to be a Hall of Famer.

    Sundberg is, in my mind, a better candidate than Boone, particularly with 300 fewer games caught. Yet that’s not saying either belong in Cooperstown.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chadwick
    replied
    Does anyone else question Boone's four consecutive Gold Gloves from age 38 to 41? Looking at his distribution of Gold Gloves, I notice that he won three up to the age of 34, but then nothing for several years and voila! Four in a row at an age where almost any player - offensively or defensively - is a fraction of the player he used to be.

    Well, holy cow. Look what I found.

    There's a darned good argument that Bob Boone was the best defender in the league each of those years. That's incredible.

    Leave a comment:


  • sturg1dj
    replied
    Originally posted by abolishthedh View Post

    This thread was about Bob Boone, a side comment was made about Mike Piazza with realization that the comment might hijack the conversation, and yet was said anyway because it needed to be said. Per the link below, Piazz'a Rtot number is - 60, that is negative 60, minus 60, 60 below zero. That is the number of "runs above or below average the player is worth based on the number of plays made. This number combines Rtz, Rdp, Rof, and Rcatch numbers into a total defensive contribution". While no stat can be perfect, any more than WAR could be perfect, IMHO it is the best defensive stat available. It also yields a measure which makes sense to this fan's subjective observations. I-Rod had a +166.0 career number, Sundberg had a 114.0, and Bob Boone reached 107. Subjective as all calculated stats will be, Piazza's number would be interpreted to state that he cost his team 60 runs over his career on defense. My point has been....

    ..that he would not have had an arm so weak that this number was that negative. The measure is meant to be interpreted to reflect his entire defensive value.

    While knowing I might hijack the thread, I said it anyway. Mike Piazza was a softball player who was so good with the bat while swinging that bat in Chavez Ravine, that fans were still dizzy about him while he could not catch. Lets imagine his Ruthian numbers if he had played 1B in Wrigley, shall we? Is that what this thread is about?
    https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...iazzmi01.shtml

    In other news, Bob Boone retired with a World Series ring (1980), and Mike Piazza will have to coach for his.
    Do you actually believe the advanced stats? If you do then you see WITH the advanced stats that Piazza was above replacement on defense AND his offense more than made up for his defense. For Boone and Sundberg they were elite defenders and negative batters whose defense did not make up for their lack of offense.

    Leave a comment:


  • philliesfiend55
    replied
    Bob Boone's feats of toppling a 40 year old record for most games at catcher (Al Lopez's 1,918 games behind the plate) in 19487 and becoming the first player in history to catch 2,000 games (1988) should not be underrated. He also extended his record to 2,225 games caught until retiring at the end of the 1990 season. All told, Boone held the record for most games at catcher for about 5 1/2 seasons and having Carlton Fisk pass Boone by one game for a new record, (2,226 games at catcher) before the White Sox owner released him (Fisk was hitting about .190 at the time) has always smelled fishy to me. The point was rendered moot a few years later when Ivan Rodriguez passed that mark and pretty much put the record out of reach by catching 2,427 games in 21 seasons and retiring before he reached age 40 (Pudge Rodriguez's work in the majors was all done between the ages of 19 and 39 - 1991 through 2011). Nobody is going to break Pudge's record for a long,long time, but I remember that there was a catcher in the Japanese Professional league player who caught about 2,900 games) - so I guess no record is unbreakable and when you get down to brass tacks - Anything Is Possible.
    Of course, with a career batting average of .254, Boone can't be considered a front line HOF candidate even by his era's veteran committee (Modern Baseball: 1970-1987), but didn't he help give fans one of the most memorable World Series moments ever when for the next-to-last out of the 1980 World Series (Phillies 4 wins, Royals 2 wins) Boone caught a foul pop only to see it spurt out of his glove and then be nabbed by first baseman, Pete Rose before it could hit the ground.
    Now that's Showmanship, with a capital S.
    Last edited by philliesfiend55; 08-01-2019, 09:21 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • abolishthedh
    replied
    Originally posted by Cougar View Post

    Yeah, while Piazza was hitting .320 with 40 HR, and catching his position pretty well otherwise, teams were able to grit their teeth & endure his weak arm.

    In other news, Babe Ruth was an inefficient base stealer, and Nolan Ryan was bad at holding runners on first.
    This thread was about Bob Boone, a side comment was made about Mike Piazza with realization that the comment might hijack the conversation, and yet was said anyway because it needed to be said. Per the link below, Piazz'a Rtot number is - 60, that is negative 60, minus 60, 60 below zero. That is the number of "runs above or below average the player is worth based on the number of plays made. This number combines Rtz, Rdp, Rof, and Rcatch numbers into a total defensive contribution". While no stat can be perfect, any more than WAR could be perfect, IMHO it is the best defensive stat available. It also yields a measure which makes sense to this fan's subjective observations. I-Rod had a +166.0 career number, Sundberg had a 114.0, and Bob Boone reached 107. Subjective as all calculated stats will be, Piazza's number would be interpreted to state that he cost his team 60 runs over his career on defense. My point has been....

    ..that he would not have had an arm so weak that this number was that negative. The measure is meant to be interpreted to reflect his entire defensive value.

    While knowing I might hijack the thread, I said it anyway. Mike Piazza was a softball player who was so good with the bat while swinging that bat in Chavez Ravine, that fans were still dizzy about him while he could not catch. Lets imagine his Ruthian numbers if he had played 1B in Wrigley, shall we? Is that what this thread is about?
    https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...iazzmi01.shtml

    In other news, Bob Boone retired with a World Series ring (1980), and Mike Piazza will have to coach for his.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chadwick
    replied
    Originally posted by abolishthedh View Post
    While I was never on the Boone bandwagon, nor the Sundberg bandwagon, nor even Jason Kendall's bandwagon (a far more sentimental favorite of mine), I find this discussion fascinating for one reason. Why is it that we continue to easily dismiss defensive value? Noone has begun any campaign for Boone nor Sundberg, and everyone was over the moon over Mike Piazza for the Hall. It is just strange.
    In Piazza's day there was a very real ongoing Piazza vs. I-Rod conversation. As far as defense, more generally, being all but invisible to fans and voters, this is largely because the tools with which we have traditionally measured this are woefully poor descriptors of ability relative to the offensive statistics employed for generations. The more variance you have in the eye test, the less concentrated a player's support will be. Defense is the eye test's greatest area of focus (pardon the pun) because there is greater ambiguity there than in hitting or pitching.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cougar
    replied
    Originally posted by abolishthedh View Post
    That is all well and good that a general consensus might exist that offense > defense in regards to the value of a player. Still, throwing is part of the picture for a catcher. Further, throwing would appear to be less important in today's game and in Piazza's time, than it had been in Boone's or Sundberg's, or Bench's or Fisk's. Piazza was able to get by without having to outplay that weakness.
    Yeah, while Piazza was hitting .320 with 40 HR, and catching his position pretty well otherwise, teams were able to grit their teeth & endure his weak arm.

    In other news, Babe Ruth was an inefficient base stealer, and Nolan Ryan was bad at holding runners on first.

    Leave a comment:


  • abolishthedh
    replied
    That is all well and good that a general consensus might exist that offense > defense in regards to the value of a player. Still, throwing is part of the picture for a catcher. Further, throwing would appear to be less important in today's game and in Piazza's time, than it had been in Boone's or Sundberg's, or Bench's or Fisk's. Piazza was able to get by without having to outplay that weakness.

    Leave a comment:


  • willshad
    replied
    Originally posted by abolishthedh View Post
    While I was never on the Boone bandwagon, nor the Sundberg bandwagon, nor even Jason Kendall's bandwagon (a far more sentimental favorite of mine), I find this discussion fascinating for one reason. Why is it that we continue to easily dismiss defensive value? Noone has begun any campaign for Boone nor Sundberg, and everyone was over the moon over Mike Piazza for the Hall. It is just strange.

    No one was ever in a major campaign for Mark Belanger, and considering his offensive production that may be no surprise. Yet, he was nearly the equal to Ozzie at SS, and clearly a significant contributor to a mini-dynasty.

    Bill Mazeroski is considered a mistake by so many posters at BBF, and yet Mike Piazza's offensive production is Piazza's only basis for induction. Furthermore, that production is suspect because of PEDs. Different positions maybe, but two positions of central value are involved there.

    If I could be a GM for as long as Connie Mack was involved, I would stick with Boone/Sundberg while ignoring Piazza until they kicked me out of Philadelphia. When similar players appeared, the scouts would be directed accordingly. Baffled.
    It's pretty obvious, to both traditionalists and advanced stats, that offense if FAR more important than defense when obtaining the value of a player. Even WAR, which I feel overrates defense, has the very best glove wizards ever at about 240 runs for their career, while Ruth has 1335 offensive runs. A top notch hitter can simply create much more value than a top glove man. An offshoot of that, is the fact that a good bat, no glove guy is generally more valuable than a no hit defensive wizard. A Ted Simmons is a much more valuable player than Bob Boone.

    Leave a comment:


  • sturg1dj
    replied
    Originally posted by abolishthedh View Post
    While I was never on the Boone bandwagon, nor the Sundberg bandwagon, nor even Jason Kendall's bandwagon (a far more sentimental favorite of mine), I find this discussion fascinating for one reason. Why is it that we continue to easily dismiss defensive value? Noone has begun any campaign for Boone nor Sundberg, and everyone was over the moon over Mike Piazza for the Hall. It is just strange.

    No one was ever in a major campaign for Mark Belanger, and considering his offensive production that may be no surprise. Yet, he was nearly the equal to Ozzie at SS, and clearly a significant contributor to a mini-dynasty.

    Bill Mazeroski is considered a mistake by so many posters at BBF, and yet Mike Piazza's offensive production is Piazza's only basis for induction. Furthermore, that production is suspect because of PEDs. Different positions maybe, but two positions of central value are involved there.

    If I could be a GM for as long as Connie Mack was involved, I would stick with Boone/Sundberg while ignoring Piazza until they kicked me out of Philadelphia. When similar players appeared, the scouts would be directed accordingly. Baffled.
    I think you missed the update that other than throwing (which is an important skill) Piazza was an average to good defensive catcher. I had thought that was the consensus for a few years now.

    Leave a comment:


  • abolishthedh
    replied
    While I was never on the Boone bandwagon, nor the Sundberg bandwagon, nor even Jason Kendall's bandwagon (a far more sentimental favorite of mine), I find this discussion fascinating for one reason. Why is it that we continue to easily dismiss defensive value? Noone has begun any campaign for Boone nor Sundberg, and everyone was over the moon over Mike Piazza for the Hall. It is just strange.

    No one was ever in a major campaign for Mark Belanger, and considering his offensive production that may be no surprise. Yet, he was nearly the equal to Ozzie at SS, and clearly a significant contributor to a mini-dynasty.

    Bill Mazeroski is considered a mistake by so many posters at BBF, and yet Mike Piazza's offensive production is Piazza's only basis for induction. Furthermore, that production is suspect because of PEDs. Different positions maybe, but two positions of central value are involved there.

    If I could be a GM for as long as Connie Mack was involved, I would stick with Boone/Sundberg while ignoring Piazza until they kicked me out of Philadelphia. When similar players appeared, the scouts would be directed accordingly. Baffled.

    Leave a comment:


  • jjpm74
    replied
    Originally posted by Jar of Flies View Post

    You've taken Freakshow's "deserving" and made it "impossible."

    None of the guys from Freakshow's list are clearly "deserving," although I am warming to Aparicio's case.

    Luis has a lot of career value but no peak, but he is awesome in contextual RE24, he's a neutral 27 wins below replacement but only 3 with RE24, his clutch score is 0.9.

    If you take the RE24 at face value, adding 24 wins makes him clearly "deserving."
    If you average the 2 scores, he adds ~12 wins, and is at least interesting, particularly if the metrics are underrating his defense or baserunning in some way.

    Shortstop was weak in his time era, but he has a legitimate claim for best shortstop during his prime.
    Was the position unusually difficult during that time to excel at (style of game, artificial turf, etc.) that makes us underrate Aparicio?

    Would appreciate everyone's thoughts, thanks
    The other guy on that list who is hard to ignore is Mark Belanger. If his OPS+ was up around Aparicio, he'd be a no brainer with the defensive value he had.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fuzzy Bear
    replied
    Originally posted by Chadwick View Post
    Jim Sundberg was the player some people think Bob Boone was. Sundberg can't sniff Cooperstown, Boone can't sniff Sundberg.
    Very true. But the belief that Boone was an inevitable HOFer at the time of his retirement was a real thing, and not something conjured up after the fact. Part of it was that Bill James was a big booster and part of it was that he held the record for games caught when he retired. And a third part of that was that he was considered a "winning" player who WAS an excellent defensive catcher.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X