Tweet
In recent years I think Miguel Tejada has established himself as one of the premier players in the game as he provides terrific offense from SS. With the types of numbers Tejada puts up yearly, I would have expected his OPS+ to be at least around 130, if not 140. However, his career OPS+ is only 112 and his career high is 133 (last year). In comparison, Jeff Kent's career is 126 and he has 6-times eclipsed 130, with a career high of 165. Heck, Jim Fregosi was a career 113, and I don't think anyone would take Fregosi over Tejada. So is Tejada not as good as his statistics indicate? Is it just smoke and mirrors? Does his low OPS+ bode well for the long-term?
-
-
Tejada's career OPS+ is heavily weighed down by the early parts of his career during which he was a .250-.260 hitter who didn't walk all that much...but I will say that I don't expect his peak to last all that long...players with similar statistical profiles don't generally have long peak periods. FWIW -
What about in 2002, his MVP year when he batted .308, 34, 131? It was only 122. Last year he batted .311, 34, 150, but it was only 126. Those are his best seasons in terms of the traditionally stats, and one would think his OPS+ would be at least around 140.Originally posted by SABR MattComment
-
Except he's not walking that much, and all of his power is longballs...he's not hitting as many doubles as you'd like from a 30+ HR threat.Comment
-
Ah, I figured about the walks, didn't realize about the doubles though. That probably explains most of it. I guess it's pretty much all or nothing with Tejada.Originally posted by SABR MattComment
-
I liken Tejada's numbers to Ernie Banks, except Banks played in a much tougher defensive era.Red, it took me 16 years to get here. Play me, and you'll get the best I got.Comment
-
Banks also put up the type of OPS+ you would expect from his numbers during his peak. From 1955-1961, here's what he did in OPS+ each year (in parentheses next to the year is his age, with Triple Crown stats after the OPS+):Originally posted by torez77
1955 (24): 144 - .295, 44, 117
1956 (25): 137 - .297, 28, 85
1957 (26): 150 - .285, 43, 102
1958 (27): 156 - .313, 47, 129 (MVP Year)
1959 (28): 155 - .304, 45, 143 (MVP Year)
1960 (29): 145 - .271, 41, 117
1961 (30): 122 - .278, 29, 80
Now compare that to Tejada's last 7 seasons:
1999 (23): 91 - .251, 21, 84
2000 (24): 112 - .275, 30, 115
2001 (25): 112 - .267, 31, 113
2002 (26): 122 - .308, 34, 131 (MVP Year)
2003 (27): 117 - .278, 27, 106
2004 (28): 126 - .311, 34, 150
2005 (29): 133 - .304, 26, 98
In addition to the players being roughly the same ages during these stretches, they each had roughly the same amount of big league experience prior to this time. Both had one-full year at the ML level the previous year and brief exposure to the ML level the year before that (so they were both essentially in their 2nd ML season).
Also, for the most part, Banks OPS+ is about what I'd expect from his numbers, whereas Tejada's is much lower. However, in 1962, Banks hit .267, 37, 104, with an OPS+ down to 110. Couple that with the 122 in 1961, and those years look more like Tejada's.Comment
-
what a joke - tejada is all or nothing - you guys have a funny way of looking at the game - and i'm using funny to be politeOriginally posted by DoubleXComment
-
Tejada has averaged 31 doubles per season, including his extended cup-of-coffee in 1999. He doesn't walk a lot, once every 14.4 PA's, and that drags his numbers down somewhat. A league average player will get a walk every 11.6 PA's.
And He grounds into a lot of DP's (third most in the majors 2000-2005). That doesn't effect OPS, but it diminishes his value.Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of BaseballComment
Comment