Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Sadaharu Oh a top 100 player?

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

  • Is Sadaharu Oh a top 100 player?

    I see a lot of people rank Oscar Charleston, Josh Gibson, and Satchel Paige in their top 100. But I never see Sadaharu Oh on anyone's top 100 list, except for Jim Albright of course.

    Do you consider Sadaharu Oh to be one of the top-100 players of all time?
    38
    Yes
    78.95%
    30
    No
    21.05%
    8
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 01-21-2006, 09:24 AM.
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

  • #2
    I think the answer is yes, but the question is where exactly does he rank. My best guess is that he belongs in the neighborhood of Killebrew, Stargell, and McCovey.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by abacab
      I think the answer is yes, but the question is where exactly does he rank. My best guess is that he belongs in the neighborhood of Killebrew, Stargell, and McCovey.
      That's a good starting point.
      Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

      Comment


      • #4
        I think he ranks in the top 100 maybe 60-80 range.
        "I was pitching one day when my glasses clouded up on me. I took them off to polish them. When I looked up to the plate, I saw Jimmie Foxx. The sight of him terrified me so much that I haven't been able to wear glasses since." - Left Gomez

        "(Lou) Gehrig never learned that a ballplayer couldn't be good every day." - Hank Gowdy

        Comment


        • #5
          J Albright has done the math for statistical comparisons of Japan League players to MLBers. If I remember right, Oh comes out a little ahead of contemporaries McCovey and Killebrew.
          "The numbers are what brought me here; as it appears they brought you."
          - Danielle Rousseau

          Comment


          • #6
            unsurprisingly, I voted yes. I doubt I'd rank him in the top 40, as I can't see him as better than Gehrig and Foxx, and I choose to be conservative enough to put him behind Mize. I put him ahead of all other first basemen from after 1920 (I'm not completely comfortable with how to rate Anson, Brouthers and Connor from the 19th century). For anyone wanting to look at the math, see this article: http://baseballguru.com/jalbright/an...lbright13.html another article which is quite relevant to this discussion is http://baseballguru.com/jalbright/an...lbright16.html

            Jim Albright
            Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
            Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
            A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

            Comment


            • #7
              --I think him has compared him to Willie McCovey in the past. I think that is a fairly optimistic, but not unreasonable comparison. McCovey is probably in the 60-70 range for me and Oh would be maybe 10-15 spots below him.

              Comment


              • #8
                I suppose Oh may just make my top 100 (probably 90s), but I don't think he's anywhere near McCovey. McCovey may have had one of the top 10 hitting peaks of all time, certainly at least top 15. I don't see Oh as being that kind of hitter. Orlando Cepeda with better plate discipline is probably more like it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  --Doesn't Orlando Cepeda with better plate dIscipline pretty much describe McCovey?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by leecemark
                    --Doesn't Orlando Cepeda with better plate dIscipline pretty much describe McCovey?
                    McCovey was a much better slugger. He had a 193 rel. IsoSLG and Cepeda was at 153. I don't think Oh was the slugger McCovey was.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      --Cepeda was a great player before his knees gave out in the mid-60s. 1967 MVP not withstanding, he was never the same player after. He was clearly a better player than McCovey in the early 60s. I guess better plate disipline AND better health separate McCovey from Cepeda though (although Strech had some knee problems of his own that kept him from Gehrig/Foxx territory).

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by 538280
                        I suppose Oh may just make my top 100 (probably 90s), but I don't think he's anywhere near McCovey. McCovey may have had one of the top 10 hitting peaks of all time, certainly at least top 15. I don't see Oh as being that kind of hitter. Orlando Cepeda with better plate discipline is probably more like it.
                        Cepeda with better plate discipline, and a longer career is a top 50 player.

                        Here is Jim's projection for Oh:

                        Code:
                        Games   AB   Hits  2B  3B  HR  TB    walks  avg  OBP   Slg 
                        2995   9939  2778 372  39 527  4809  2235 0.279  0.412  0.484
                        Based on that, and considering that it is projected to the low offense '60s, you would have to rate Oh as a top 50 or 60 player.
                        "The numbers are what brought me here; as it appears they brought you."
                        - Danielle Rousseau

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          more walks than Teddy Ballgame?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by blackout805
                            more walks than Teddy Ballgame?
                            Yep. This is the one case where I used Oh's actual total rather than what the numbers told me I should use. Before you get on any high horse about that, realize that doing so was a far more conservative option (i.e., the numbers said it should be even higher because of 1) the shorter Japanese seasons and 2) the comparisons of the time have major leaguers giving up more walks to guys who played in both leagues than Japanese pitchers did).

                            I've written that Oh's career totals are McCovey's with 700 more walks. Oh was insanely consistent if you account for season length. So he would have never been as good as McCovey at his peak, but over his career, he would have bested Willie because of Oh's consistency and durability.

                            Jim Albright
                            Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
                            Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
                            A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              As a sidelight to my estimation of Oh's walks, the numbers I used would put Oh at around 3000. If instead we used his performance in exhibitions against major leaguers, those numbers would prorate to over 2500--and the evidence is that those major league pitchers were definitely better than average. So choosing 2200+ is as conservative as I could go and still base the figure on actual evidence.

                              There are several advantages in using McCovey as the base for comparison. Both men are left handed first basemen who played basically from 1960 to 1980 and either project (Oh) or did hit 520-530 career homers.

                              Jim Albright
                              Last edited by jalbright; 01-09-2006, 01:30 PM.
                              Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
                              Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
                              A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X