The rumours are swirling full speed now. Yankees radio broadcaster John Sterling is reporting that the Rodriguez deal is 101% done on New York’s WFAN. Is this a ploy by Scott Boras to get the Yankees to bite? If it is, he has done the Yankees a huge favour. Now the Yankees can say they went the extra mile to keep the hard-hitting third baseman in good faith. Unfortunately, they were duped by the villainous Boras and the greedy, duplicitous A-Rod.
Boras may get the offer to shop around he wants but it may have accomplished the impossible--make his client look worse than he already appears. The thing is, Rodriguez can still salvage the situation but he has to act quickly. His claims of wanting to stay in New York will have more credibility if he acts quickly before time passes where he could field other offers. If he waits too long, it will be easy to say that the money wasn’t out there, he was deep-sixed by his own avarice and has now come crawling back.
If he gives a discount to compensate for the lost Texas subsidy while still receiving a generous contract, A-Rod can say that he didn’t fully understand Boras’s strategy but trusted his agent. When he saw things comes apart, he felt he had to take the initiative to set things right so he can do what he has stated the last couple of years--finish his career in the Bronx.
Should this drag out too long, the Yankees are going to become suspicious and back off while pulling any offers from the table loudly and publicly so Boras cannot shop them around. The thing is, I mentioned once before that I think often Rodriguez speaks his heart but allows Boras to change his thinking to take a different course of action. This ‘say one thing and do another’ has become an A-Rod hallmark. If this is the case, then maybe Rodriguez is initiating this and taking control of his own destiny.
I felt from the get-go that Boras was overreaching. Yes, baseball’s revenues can support the numbers he is suggesting but is unable to make his case why his client deserves the proposed deal. The opt out stunt struck me as Boras overestimating his leverage and marketability of Rodriguez. Boras believes in his own financial omniscience and thought he could demonstrate A-Rod’s blinding star power could match the World Series headline for headline. He was right but for all the wrong reasons. They did get the bold print and it was overwhelmingly negative.
For some reason, Boras thought (or thinks) that not returning the Yankees phone calls, keeping Rodriguez from talking to the Yankees, opting out before the club could even make an offer and then trying to upstage the Boston Red Sox’s moment of triumph wouldn’t affect A-Rod’s desirability to two of baseball’s biggest spenders.
Again, that’s arrogance; while Boras knows a lot about baseball’s finances he seemed to not see that Rodriguez’s image was already in a bear market and his handling of the opt out put it into free fall. He seemed to think that the third baseman’s phenomenal 2007 built up enough goodwill capital in the game that he could get away with it. It’s entirely possible that the agent made a critical blunder, communing only with like-minded people so much that he never bothered to see what the prevailing opinion outside his self-made cocoon was.
However if this is a Scott Boras tactic to goose up the bidding, he may well get close to his $300 million target for Rodriguez but at what cost to his client? Once his bat starts to decline with the team who signs him, he will not be able to escape the loathing until he retires. He will be a wealthy man on a 162 game road trip.
Best Regards
John
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
This and that…
While surfing through the blogosphere I came across a blog called The Toronto Star's Richard Griffin is Retarded. Many Blue Jays bloggers regularly ridicule Mr. Griffin (his weekly mailbag being a favourite target) and it looks like one person took the initiative to devote an entire site to it.
Not surprisingly, the author is a major devotee of sabermetrics. As we have (We? I think I am the only one here …oh well) discussed in the recent past, sabermetrics like any philosophy is helpful as a guideline and not a hard and fast approach to everything. At any rate, he goes on to slag Mr. Griffin over his views of the MVP award. To wit:
While I do agree it’s an effective method for establishing a good chunk of player value, it should be kept in mind that the criteria for the award isn’t based on that particular stat. In its early years, the MVP (nee The Chalmers Award) was given to the winner of the league’s batting title and could not be won more than once. Further, not all value is derived in the stats; exhibit A being the case of Dick Allen.
Allen possessed Hall of Fame skills and if you check Baseball Reference, it will tell you that he had the Black and Gray ink totals typical of a Hall of Famer. Allen won a RoTY, and MVP, was many times an All Star and left the game with an OPS+ of 156--the same total as Willie Mays and a point higher than Hank Aaron. While it should be noted that Mays and Aaron did it for much longer, it tells us just how top-shelf Allen mashed. The only players not in Cooperstown with a 6000+ AB career and a higher OPS+ than Allen (among eligibles) are Mark McGwire and Shoeless Joe Jackson.
Why is Allen not enshrined?
Bill James wrote that Allen did more to keep his team from winning than almost any other player did. He famously added that if such a player belongs in the Hall of Fame then he’s “a lug nut.” We see from James' example that value isn’t always reflected in the numbers. Our aforementioned blogger went on to criticize the 1979 MVP vote won by Willie Stargell by comparing his totals to Dave Parker and Keith Hernandez.
I’m going to go out on a limb that he wasn’t around in 1979 and due to this, he only has the numbers to go by. A few posts ago I wrote:
Again, not everything that happens in a ballgame or over a season shows up in the box scores or stat lines.
One of my favourite memories of Paul Molitor is when he'd bunt for a hit. He'd quickly scan the infield, note that they were playing back and less than alert then suddenly he'd be on first base. It is just an infield hit in the box score but it was a savvy move by a smart player. A lot of talented players don't always have their heads in the game (Manny being Manny) while others contribute by not missing anything and capitalizing when the opposition is napping. The plays made (or not made) because of this eventually show up in a team's won-loss record.
Dick Allen was a major disruptive influence in the clubhouse and Willie Stargell was the anti-Allen. This illustrates why it’s important to look at baseball history beyond what we find at Baseball Reference. If we look at the numbers, we get just a one or two-dimensional look at a season or a career. We should try to study the history through the eyes of those who were there as well. Back in 1979 Stargell was an easy choice for (co-) MVP because of what he gave the Pirates above and beyond the raw totals.
The BBWAA, who it should be noted do some truly bewildering things, receive ballots for MVP and the criterion isn’t ‘selecting the top-10 finishers in WARP1.’ A lot of things make up a game or a season and these things count. We remember when Pee Wee Reese put his arm around Jackie Robinson on the field showing solidarity amidst a racist crowd. What about a player who hung tough and played while hurt, a player who kept the team focused when everybody was writing them off for dead? These things will never show up in a box score and there isn’t a player alive or dead that will say these things don’t matter.
The MVP will always be an award based on both objective and subjective criteria; it will never lose the human element. WARP1 will tell you who had the best season statistically, however the award has never been based on that. For every Dick Allen there will be a Willie Stargell and for every Albert Belle there will be a Kirby Puckett. All will have nice numbers but not all of them were conducive to winning titles.
Anyway, my old MLBtalk and Bootleg Sports cohort and now Fox Sports baseball commentator Dayn Perry (I guess we’re still both under the same umbrella: MSN, he down south and I in Canada) wrote 10 big moves that need to happen:
I like this idea in that it does a few things for the Jays; it upgrades the offense at short (duh) and gives us an option at third base when Glaus needs time off. In both cases, our Prime Minister of Defense John McDonald can play when Tejada’s playing third or as a late inning defensive replacement. The thing is, while Mac’s hitting is poor the man is magic with the leather and I think the pitching staff would prefer having J-Mac behind them. Of course, we can go flip-mode and say that maybe the pitchers would prefer more run support. Regardless, the Orioles want to be rid of his contract so the Jays likely wouldn’t have to pay more for Tejada than the Tigers did for Edgar Renteria.
Finally …
My weekly MSN column is live: A-Rod: Baseball's Evel Knievel. Thank God, for Scott Boras and Rodriguez, they provide a lot of fodder for hacks like me. Right now, there’s a rumour in New York that A-Rod is trying to build a bridge back to the Yankees. The Bronx Bombers are willing to explore this provided Boras isn’t part of the negotiations. Is A-Rod having a change of heart or is this a gimmick by Boras to get the Yanks back into the bidding process?
Time will tell, but I’m guessing it’s the latter.
Best Regards
John
Not surprisingly, the author is a major devotee of sabermetrics. As we have (We? I think I am the only one here …oh well) discussed in the recent past, sabermetrics like any philosophy is helpful as a guideline and not a hard and fast approach to everything. At any rate, he goes on to slag Mr. Griffin over his views of the MVP award. To wit:
And this is why you are a useless hack. WARP1 is a statistical method that calculates a player performance over the course of the year in terms of wins above replacement level, adjusted for that season. Performance = value in terms of wins. The player whose performance netted the greatest number of wins for his team should earn the award.
While I do agree it’s an effective method for establishing a good chunk of player value, it should be kept in mind that the criteria for the award isn’t based on that particular stat. In its early years, the MVP (nee The Chalmers Award) was given to the winner of the league’s batting title and could not be won more than once. Further, not all value is derived in the stats; exhibit A being the case of Dick Allen.
Allen possessed Hall of Fame skills and if you check Baseball Reference, it will tell you that he had the Black and Gray ink totals typical of a Hall of Famer. Allen won a RoTY, and MVP, was many times an All Star and left the game with an OPS+ of 156--the same total as Willie Mays and a point higher than Hank Aaron. While it should be noted that Mays and Aaron did it for much longer, it tells us just how top-shelf Allen mashed. The only players not in Cooperstown with a 6000+ AB career and a higher OPS+ than Allen (among eligibles) are Mark McGwire and Shoeless Joe Jackson.
Why is Allen not enshrined?
Bill James wrote that Allen did more to keep his team from winning than almost any other player did. He famously added that if such a player belongs in the Hall of Fame then he’s “a lug nut.” We see from James' example that value isn’t always reflected in the numbers. Our aforementioned blogger went on to criticize the 1979 MVP vote won by Willie Stargell by comparing his totals to Dave Parker and Keith Hernandez.
I’m going to go out on a limb that he wasn’t around in 1979 and due to this, he only has the numbers to go by. A few posts ago I wrote:
Let’s take two players on a division champion—one was an average fielding first baseman who posted an OPS+ of 139, the other, a Gold Glove cannon armed corner outfielder that posted an OPS+ of 141 who, by the way, won the MVP the previous season. Of note, the right fielder was an All Star in this particular season while the first baseman was not.
Who is the better MVP candidate?
Well, in 1979 Willie “Pops” Stargell was named co-MVP (Keith Hernandez) while Dave Parker finished 10th. Why the discrepancy? What happened that made the voters feel that despite being an inferior on-field performer he received 150 more MVP points than the superior player?
If you were around in 1979 you remember the “We are family” Pirates and Stargell was the unquestioned team leader (hence the nickname “Pops”). If you look at game photos from that season, you’ll notice differing numbers of stars sown on various players’ caps. Stargell bestowed them on players who made an outstanding contribution in a given game. Each and every player considered getting a star from Stargell an honour—that’s how well regarded Stargell was. That respect, coupled with a .281/.352/.552 batting line, 32 home run, 82 RBI was enough in the voters’ minds to give the award to he, rather than the All Star who hit .310/.380/.526 with 25 HR and 94 RBI backed with Gold Glove defense.
Again, not everything that happens in a ballgame or over a season shows up in the box scores or stat lines.
There are other things that contribute to a player’s value that won’t show up in the numbers (depending on position): good base running (above and beyond stolen base proficiency), throwing to the correct base, hitting the cut off man, being aware when the other team has a play on, disrupting the opposing team’s defense/pitcher (not a reference to A-Rod’s MINE! stunt) a la Rickey Henderson, staying out/breaking up double plays, converting double play opportunities when they arise, preventing passed balls/wild pitches etc.
One of my favourite memories of Paul Molitor is when he'd bunt for a hit. He'd quickly scan the infield, note that they were playing back and less than alert then suddenly he'd be on first base. It is just an infield hit in the box score but it was a savvy move by a smart player. A lot of talented players don't always have their heads in the game (Manny being Manny) while others contribute by not missing anything and capitalizing when the opposition is napping. The plays made (or not made) because of this eventually show up in a team's won-loss record.
Dick Allen was a major disruptive influence in the clubhouse and Willie Stargell was the anti-Allen. This illustrates why it’s important to look at baseball history beyond what we find at Baseball Reference. If we look at the numbers, we get just a one or two-dimensional look at a season or a career. We should try to study the history through the eyes of those who were there as well. Back in 1979 Stargell was an easy choice for (co-) MVP because of what he gave the Pirates above and beyond the raw totals.
The BBWAA, who it should be noted do some truly bewildering things, receive ballots for MVP and the criterion isn’t ‘selecting the top-10 finishers in WARP1.’ A lot of things make up a game or a season and these things count. We remember when Pee Wee Reese put his arm around Jackie Robinson on the field showing solidarity amidst a racist crowd. What about a player who hung tough and played while hurt, a player who kept the team focused when everybody was writing them off for dead? These things will never show up in a box score and there isn’t a player alive or dead that will say these things don’t matter.
The MVP will always be an award based on both objective and subjective criteria; it will never lose the human element. WARP1 will tell you who had the best season statistically, however the award has never been based on that. For every Dick Allen there will be a Willie Stargell and for every Albert Belle there will be a Kirby Puckett. All will have nice numbers but not all of them were conducive to winning titles.
Anyway, my old MLBtalk and Bootleg Sports cohort and now Fox Sports baseball commentator Dayn Perry (I guess we’re still both under the same umbrella: MSN, he down south and I in Canada) wrote 10 big moves that need to happen:
Last season, Toronto shortstops combined to hit .237 AVG/.276 OBP/.322 SLG, while the average major league shortstop hit .275 AVG/.330 OBP/.407 SLG. Suffice to say, that's unacceptable production. Enter Tejada, who is not an ideal defender at this stage of his career, though his bat more than makes up for his shortcomings with the glove. The Jays don't have a particularly strong crop of young talent for a deal, but the O's are more concerned about off-loading the $26 million that Tejada is owed over the next two seasons. Baltimore might hate trading him within the division, but at least it's not to Boston or the Yankees. A package of young arms centered around Ricky Romero (plus the salary relief) should be enough for the O's.
I like this idea in that it does a few things for the Jays; it upgrades the offense at short (duh) and gives us an option at third base when Glaus needs time off. In both cases, our Prime Minister of Defense John McDonald can play when Tejada’s playing third or as a late inning defensive replacement. The thing is, while Mac’s hitting is poor the man is magic with the leather and I think the pitching staff would prefer having J-Mac behind them. Of course, we can go flip-mode and say that maybe the pitchers would prefer more run support. Regardless, the Orioles want to be rid of his contract so the Jays likely wouldn’t have to pay more for Tejada than the Tigers did for Edgar Renteria.
Finally …
My weekly MSN column is live: A-Rod: Baseball's Evel Knievel. Thank God, for Scott Boras and Rodriguez, they provide a lot of fodder for hacks like me. Right now, there’s a rumour in New York that A-Rod is trying to build a bridge back to the Yankees. The Bronx Bombers are willing to explore this provided Boras isn’t part of the negotiations. Is A-Rod having a change of heart or is this a gimmick by Boras to get the Yanks back into the bidding process?
Time will tell, but I’m guessing it’s the latter.
Best Regards
John
Monday, November 12, 2007
$350 million is just the beginning of the cost...
Is there a team stupid enough to give Scott Boras what he wants for Alex Rodriguez?
Yes, it is stupid but not for the reasons you read about in the mainstream media. Here is the obvious one, as usual, culled from an earlier column:
Alex Rodriguez’s primary skill set is his hitting. Boras is selling milestones since he knows full well that his offensive numbers don’t support the contract he’s seeking. Career-wise his batting is Miguel Cabrera/Vladmir Guerrero territory. Cabrera has more upside; Guerrero has about the same defensive value. Neither is within sniffing distance of a 10-year/$350 million contract. Over more recent seasons we compared A-Rod to David Ortiz (2003-07):
Of course David Ortiz hits like a Barry Bonds on drugs in the post season while Boras is presenting a tome on why Rodriguez’s October flops are not a big deal.
This leads us into the second reason it’s a bad idea to acquire the third baseman. Not only are you tying a huge anchor to your own payroll it won’t stop there. Suppose the New York Mets antes up Boras’s request--in 2011 how happy do you think Jose Reyes is going to be if the Mets pick up the $11 million option on his deal? He’ll be 28 manning a key defensive position and is a potent speed/power mix. What will it cost the Mets to get him to sign an extension when the defensively challenged A-Rod is pulling down $30-35 million per annum? How about David Wright? The Mets just signed him through 2012 with a team option for 2013. He’s averaging $9.1 million per year providing everything Rodriguez does with better defense. Do you think he’ll be happy playing alongside a guy making almost four times in annual salary for lesser contributions?
If he goes to the Phillies and ends up on third base you have the same problem. Chase Utley averages $12 million a year with his new deal and is the best second baseman since Roberto Alomar. Jimmy Rollins is a Gold Glove shortstop and possible league MVP with power and speed and he averages $8 million per. Now they stick Alex Rodriguez at the hot corner with average defense and earning 300-400% more than them both. In fact, A-Rod will cost the Phillies more than one of the best middle infields in the game.
We touched on David Ortiz; comparable offensive players--except in October, can you imagine what he’ll want in his next deal if Rodriguez is pulling down $20 million more annually? What is Dustin Pedroia going to ask for to sign long term?
It’s not the cost of the contract, it’s the cost of the deal plus its effects on the salary demands of his teammates. How can you look players in the eye who may well be contributing more than Alex Rodriguez on the field they’re not even worth 60% of what he’s getting--and as an outsider at that?
Bottom line, if a team gives in to Boras’s demands, it’s going to get a lot more expensive to keep their rosters together since players that will be contributing more than Alex Rodriguez will expect to be paid accordingly.
Caveat emptor indeed.
Best Regards
John
Yes, it is stupid but not for the reasons you read about in the mainstream media. Here is the obvious one, as usual, culled from an earlier column:
“In July 2008, Alex Rodriguez will be a 33-year-old average fielding third baseman who will likely have to switch to LF/1B/DH in the very near future. His level of offensive production is right around David Ortiz and Chipper Jones levels although your client is more durable. To be perfectly honest, he isn’t well thought of among a lot of fans. They don’t like him in Texas, and they really don’t like him in New York at this moment. After the Red Sox won the World Series, Boston fans were chanting that they preferred Mike Lowell to Rodriguez."
"Quite frankly, while Alex has kept his nose clean for the most part, he is generally perceived as being as phony as a three-dollar bill. This isn’t Michael Jordan or Wayne Gretzky you’re selling here. Ortiz is on a whole different level of marketability; 'Big Papi' is better liked, is now a World Series legend and makes $13 million a year.
"Here’s the perception: There is another player who isn’t well liked by fans. His name is Barry Bonds. When folks want to make fun of Bonds, they take his picture and Photoshop either a large head or these comic book superhero type arms onto him. When they wish to make fun of your client they put him in high heels and holding a purse. One is called Barroid, the other ‘Slappy.’ Do you see the problem here? Further, despite your cheery predictions, no player has produced at high levels by age 45. The closest we have is Bonds and simply put, A-Rod is no Barry Bonds and his achievements are considered suspicious.
"He will decline offensively, he will decline defensively, and he will steal fewer bases. You like using numbers Mr. Boras so you might be interested in this one: After Rodriguez’s monster year, his career OPS+ is 147. Ten players are right around that—five above and five below. The five in front are Frank Thomas, Manny Ramirez, Jim Thome, Vladmir Guerrero and Jason Giambi. The five just behind him are Lance Berkman, Miguel Cabrera, Todd Helton, Chipper Jones and Gary Sheffield. In the cases of Thomas, Ramirez, Thome and Giambi, this includes a good chunk of their decline phase—something Rodriguez has yet to begin.
"When you consider that A-Rod will make most of his money with his bat, well, there are 10 hitters in his neighborhood—are any of them looking for a 10-year/$300 million contract? Of course not. That’s absurd.
"He’ll put up some nice numbers in the next few years, we know that. Nevertheless the milestones you’re predicting are years away and the last time somebody gave your client a 10-year deal ... well, he’s looking to play for his third team in the last seven seasons. What guarantees do we have that he’ll play happily here until these milestones are set? He was tired of Texas in three years. And judging by the timing of his opt-out and the fact that you didn’t even have a face-to-face meeting with the Yankees, he couldn’t get out of New York fast enough.
"I can show you a number of statements made by your client that are the exact opposite of what he ultimately did. How can I have any peace of mind paying for these milestones knowing that I only have his word to go on?
"His bat isn’t worth $300 million—the market tells us that. A-Rod’s post season performance isn’t worth $300 million—he has yet to play in a World Series game. Alex’s image isn’t worth $300 million—a lot of people tell us that.
"Rodriguez’s word that he’ll play here for the duration of his contract is most certainly not worth $300 million and no amount of defense and base running is worth $300 million. There are no guarantees that he’ll stay healthy or not get injured away from the field over the next 10 years and no company will insure the sort of contract ...
Alex Rodriguez’s primary skill set is his hitting. Boras is selling milestones since he knows full well that his offensive numbers don’t support the contract he’s seeking. Career-wise his batting is Miguel Cabrera/Vladmir Guerrero territory. Cabrera has more upside; Guerrero has about the same defensive value. Neither is within sniffing distance of a 10-year/$350 million contract. Over more recent seasons we compared A-Rod to David Ortiz (2003-07):
Player BA OBP SLG HR
David Ortiz: .302 .403 .612 208
Alex Rodriguez: .302 .391 .578 220
Of course David Ortiz hits like a Barry Bonds on drugs in the post season while Boras is presenting a tome on why Rodriguez’s October flops are not a big deal.
This leads us into the second reason it’s a bad idea to acquire the third baseman. Not only are you tying a huge anchor to your own payroll it won’t stop there. Suppose the New York Mets antes up Boras’s request--in 2011 how happy do you think Jose Reyes is going to be if the Mets pick up the $11 million option on his deal? He’ll be 28 manning a key defensive position and is a potent speed/power mix. What will it cost the Mets to get him to sign an extension when the defensively challenged A-Rod is pulling down $30-35 million per annum? How about David Wright? The Mets just signed him through 2012 with a team option for 2013. He’s averaging $9.1 million per year providing everything Rodriguez does with better defense. Do you think he’ll be happy playing alongside a guy making almost four times in annual salary for lesser contributions?
If he goes to the Phillies and ends up on third base you have the same problem. Chase Utley averages $12 million a year with his new deal and is the best second baseman since Roberto Alomar. Jimmy Rollins is a Gold Glove shortstop and possible league MVP with power and speed and he averages $8 million per. Now they stick Alex Rodriguez at the hot corner with average defense and earning 300-400% more than them both. In fact, A-Rod will cost the Phillies more than one of the best middle infields in the game.
We touched on David Ortiz; comparable offensive players--except in October, can you imagine what he’ll want in his next deal if Rodriguez is pulling down $20 million more annually? What is Dustin Pedroia going to ask for to sign long term?
It’s not the cost of the contract, it’s the cost of the deal plus its effects on the salary demands of his teammates. How can you look players in the eye who may well be contributing more than Alex Rodriguez on the field they’re not even worth 60% of what he’s getting--and as an outsider at that?
Bottom line, if a team gives in to Boras’s demands, it’s going to get a lot more expensive to keep their rosters together since players that will be contributing more than Alex Rodriguez will expect to be paid accordingly.
Caveat emptor indeed.
Best Regards
John
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Jimmy Rollins would not be an unworthy choice as NL MVP...
I am guessing that Jimmy Rollins will likely win the NL MVP this year. I’ll go out on a limb and assume a lot stat guys will be livid about the decision. The thing is the award isn’t for the guy with the best numbers factoring in his defensive position. Put another way, in general an average defensive first baseman hitting 40 HR with an OPS+ of 160 probably won’t beat a good fielding shortstop with 35 HR and an OPS+ of 150.
It’s not just an award based on stats, it’s about the value the player has to his club. Were it strictly about the numbers it would be a very easy thing to predict. Don’t get me wrong, obviously superior numbers is the main way to assess a given player’s contributions but it’s not the only criteria. Further, which stats do you use to determine who is worthy: RBI, home runs, runs scored, BRAA, RCAA, VORP, WAB, OPS+?
A lot of other things go into it, defense, playing time, leading by example etc. Awhile back on THT, I used the following comparison (slightly edited):
Certain players are known for accumulating stats but aren’t considered ‘winning ballplayers.’ We remember manager Alvin Dark’s famous (though dubious) rip on Orlando Cepeda: “Among other things, I'm getting sick and tired of people leading the league in home runs and runs batted in and not helping us any!” Regardless of the validity (or lack thereof) of that assessment it does serve as a reminder that baseball remains a team game. A valuable player is one who subordinates personal goals for the good of the team. A grand slam is always nice, however in a tie game with one out in the bottom of the ninth a hitter will be looking to make firm contact rather than swinging from his glutes since only one run is needed. If a player is looking for a grand salami rather than plating the winning run (to help with his next contract) and whiffs; well, that’s not very valuable to a team--especially if it is done on a regular basis in such situations.
I have devoted a lot of words lately blasting Scott Boras for marketing Alex Rodriguez as a guy who will accumulate incredible personal number rather than a key cog for a championship roster.
Another factor is playing time; a first baseman with an OPS+ of 180 but plays in just 100 games due to injury isn’t as valuable as a Gold Glove shortstop with an OPS+ of 130 who rarely misses a game. The team has to find someone to man first base who will be a poorer offensive player to the regular. Meanwhile, the shortstop position gets a high quality bat for 160 games and the lineup never has to deal with a decline in the batting order’s potency that not playing will create.
There are other things that contribute to a player’s value that won’t show up in the numbers (depending on position): good base running (above and beyond stolen base proficiency), throwing to the correct base, hitting the cut off man, being aware when the other team has a play on, disrupting the opposing team’s defense/pitcher (not a reference to A-Rod’s MINE! stunt) a la Rickey Henderson, staying out/breaking up double plays, converting double play opportunities when they arise, preventing passed balls/wild pitches etc.
Getting back to Rollins, I think where most of the angst will be directed is at his slightly lower than league average OBP (.344). A couple of things have to be borne in mind, one it’s one blemish among a ton of positives:
Folks will ask ‘How can he be MVP when he’s only the third or fourth best player on his own team?’
Again, it is not an award for a team’s best player, it’s for the club’s most valuable player. Earlier we discussed the 1979 Pirates and Stargell’s value over Dave Parker. Yes, Chase Utley, Ryan Howard, Pat Burrell and Aaron Rowand all had higher adjusted OPS+. Rollins manned a key defensive position while Burrell and Howard were lower on the defensive spectrum and performed without positive distinction with the leather. Utley, a superior defender, missed 30 games obligating the Phillies to play an inferior talent both offensively and defensively for almost 20% of the schedule. Philadelphia had Rollins’ talents for every game. Rowand had Rollins durability (161 games) and played a key defensive position yet was possibly not as good a defender relative to the league and lacked Rollins’ threat on the base paths.
Again, it’s a question of total value and not simply a player’s adjusted offensive contributions.
Finally, Rollins made a bold prediction at the beginning of the season and never backed down from it. He talked the talk and walked the walk. It’s easy to surmise his attitude was a positive in the clubhouse as was Stargell in 1979.
He may ultimately not be the NL most valuable player in 2007 but his selection will be far from a travesty and shouldn‘t be viewed as such. A player who sets a league record is a major statistical category (total bases by a shortstop) and got it done offensively and defensively at a key position is a fine choice as a league's Most Valuable Player.
Best Regards
John
It’s not just an award based on stats, it’s about the value the player has to his club. Were it strictly about the numbers it would be a very easy thing to predict. Don’t get me wrong, obviously superior numbers is the main way to assess a given player’s contributions but it’s not the only criteria. Further, which stats do you use to determine who is worthy: RBI, home runs, runs scored, BRAA, RCAA, VORP, WAB, OPS+?
A lot of other things go into it, defense, playing time, leading by example etc. Awhile back on THT, I used the following comparison (slightly edited):
Let’s take two players on a division champion—one was an average fielding first baseman who posted an OPS+ of 139, the other, a Gold Glove cannon armed corner outfielder that posted an OPS+ of 141 who, by the way, won the MVP the previous season. Of note, the right fielder was an All Star in this particular season while the first baseman was not.
Who is the better MVP candidate?
Well, in 1979 Willie “Pops” Stargell was named co-MVP (Keith Hernandez) while Dave Parker finished 10th. Why the discrepancy? What happened that made the voters feel that despite being an inferior on-field performer he received 150 more MVP points than the superior player?
If you were around in 1979 you remember the “We are family” Pirates and Stargell was the unquestioned team leader (hence the nickname “Pops”). If you look at game photos from that season, you’ll notice differing numbers of stars sown on various players’ caps. Stargell bestowed them on players who made an outstanding contribution in a given game. Each and every player considered getting a star from Stargell an honour—that’s how well regarded Stargell was. That respect, coupled with a .281/.352/.552 batting line, 32 home run, 82 RBI was enough in the voters’ minds to give the award to he, rather than the All Star who hit .310/.380/.526 with 25 HR and 94 RBI backed with Gold Glove defense.
Certain players are known for accumulating stats but aren’t considered ‘winning ballplayers.’ We remember manager Alvin Dark’s famous (though dubious) rip on Orlando Cepeda: “Among other things, I'm getting sick and tired of people leading the league in home runs and runs batted in and not helping us any!” Regardless of the validity (or lack thereof) of that assessment it does serve as a reminder that baseball remains a team game. A valuable player is one who subordinates personal goals for the good of the team. A grand slam is always nice, however in a tie game with one out in the bottom of the ninth a hitter will be looking to make firm contact rather than swinging from his glutes since only one run is needed. If a player is looking for a grand salami rather than plating the winning run (to help with his next contract) and whiffs; well, that’s not very valuable to a team--especially if it is done on a regular basis in such situations.
I have devoted a lot of words lately blasting Scott Boras for marketing Alex Rodriguez as a guy who will accumulate incredible personal number rather than a key cog for a championship roster.
Another factor is playing time; a first baseman with an OPS+ of 180 but plays in just 100 games due to injury isn’t as valuable as a Gold Glove shortstop with an OPS+ of 130 who rarely misses a game. The team has to find someone to man first base who will be a poorer offensive player to the regular. Meanwhile, the shortstop position gets a high quality bat for 160 games and the lineup never has to deal with a decline in the batting order’s potency that not playing will create.
There are other things that contribute to a player’s value that won’t show up in the numbers (depending on position): good base running (above and beyond stolen base proficiency), throwing to the correct base, hitting the cut off man, being aware when the other team has a play on, disrupting the opposing team’s defense/pitcher (not a reference to A-Rod’s MINE! stunt) a la Rickey Henderson, staying out/breaking up double plays, converting double play opportunities when they arise, preventing passed balls/wild pitches etc.
Getting back to Rollins, I think where most of the angst will be directed is at his slightly lower than league average OBP (.344). A couple of things have to be borne in mind, one it’s one blemish among a ton of positives:
The other thing is Rollins OBP was largely due to a crummy May when it was an abysmal .279. The other five months Rollins OBP was .359 and he posted a .353 OBP from June 1 through the end of the season. Also, it represented Rollins best year in that category since 2004 and second-best of his career.
- He led the NL in runs (139) and triples (20).
- Had a rare season with 20 or more doubles (39), triples (20), home runs (30) and stolen bases (41).
- Enjoyed a 30-30 season.
- Was only caught stealing six times for an 87% success rate.
- Tied for 2nd in the NL with 212 hits and total bases (380).
- Set a NL record for total bases by a shortstop; in MLB only Alex Rodriguez had more total bases as a shortstop (1998, 2001 and 2002).
- Played in every game.
- Although it was awarded after votes were submitted, Rollins won the NL Gold Glove.
- Despite batting leadoff in the NL, 80 of his 93 RBI were garnered hitting atop the lineup.
Folks will ask ‘How can he be MVP when he’s only the third or fourth best player on his own team?’
Again, it is not an award for a team’s best player, it’s for the club’s most valuable player. Earlier we discussed the 1979 Pirates and Stargell’s value over Dave Parker. Yes, Chase Utley, Ryan Howard, Pat Burrell and Aaron Rowand all had higher adjusted OPS+. Rollins manned a key defensive position while Burrell and Howard were lower on the defensive spectrum and performed without positive distinction with the leather. Utley, a superior defender, missed 30 games obligating the Phillies to play an inferior talent both offensively and defensively for almost 20% of the schedule. Philadelphia had Rollins’ talents for every game. Rowand had Rollins durability (161 games) and played a key defensive position yet was possibly not as good a defender relative to the league and lacked Rollins’ threat on the base paths.
Again, it’s a question of total value and not simply a player’s adjusted offensive contributions.
Finally, Rollins made a bold prediction at the beginning of the season and never backed down from it. He talked the talk and walked the walk. It’s easy to surmise his attitude was a positive in the clubhouse as was Stargell in 1979.
He may ultimately not be the NL most valuable player in 2007 but his selection will be far from a travesty and shouldn‘t be viewed as such. A player who sets a league record is a major statistical category (total bases by a shortstop) and got it done offensively and defensively at a key position is a fine choice as a league's Most Valuable Player.
Best Regards
John
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Apropos of absolutely nothing...
Now that I am done with the ‘triple-triple’, I was able to distil the data for an upcoming Hardball Times column. As mentioned before, this blog will partly be used for brain(?)storming among other things. Speaking of which, my THT column this week was building off a Jeff Passan column on Yahoo Sports. It wasn’t so much a critique of Jeff’s column as offering a couple of counterpoints. His column was pretty good but there were a couple of points where we differed and I went from there.
I’m amazed with the legs my “Battling Boras” piece has; the WSJ mention was nice of course, but I was floored by Will Leitch’s remark on Deadspin where he wrote: “In the other, more convincing corner, the now-famous Hardball Times article…”
It’s not even two weeks old. The world is a scary place where I write anything that can be described as famous.
Oh well, its good publicity at any rate. It’s tough to make a name in this line of work. Probably the worst overpopulation this planet suffers from is sportswriters. We’re like mosquitoes in May when you’re trying to fish; it doesn’t matter where you go, we’ll be there making folks so miserable that they’ll start slapping themselves for relief.
My MSN column has yet to be posted. I don’t worry as much about this sort of thing during the off-season since articles are much less time sensitive. When you write something from April-October there is a good chance that what you covered is old news by the time it goes live. My poor boss at MSN is severely overworked and I hate to bother him. He’s very good at what he does but he’s also his own staff. I wonder if the guy has a chance to sleep most days--considering he’s a fairly recent new father I wonder if he even knows what sleep is.
Hang in there Scott.
At any rate, my yet-to-be-posted column will be familiar to regular readers (the three flies who seem to like landing on my monitor who amscray whenever I bring out Mr. Swatter--cowards) of this blog; the shenanigans or the greatest manure spreader not made by John Deere … the purulent Mr. Boras. I’m appalled (like you care) that he seems fixated on packaging Alex Rodriguez as little more than a sideshow act. He’s not presenting him as a final piece of a championship puzzle (which is somewhat understandable I guess) but as a statistical freak-show. ‘Come see A-Rod slug 900 HR and get 4500 hits. He’s worth a half-billion to the Yankees but act now and you can get him for the bargain-basement price of $499,999,999.95.’
I remember a movie starring Paul Newman called ‘The Hunsucker Proxy’ that I lost a couple of hours of my life viewing. Bottom line, it doesn’t matter how good a thespian (not that there’s anything wrong with that ) Mr. Newman is, the movie sucked chunky bilge water. This is what Boras is selling: Pay big dollars and he’ll put up big numbers. It doesn’t matter that your team will Fujita-scale suck, folks will flock to Alex Rodriguez’s Home Run Derby® (a subsidiary of Scott Boras Inc.) .
As a fan, it really drives me up the wall (I waited for years to see if my mother would actually do this). The Jays haven’t even sniffed the post season since 1993 (and don’t get me started on the Maple Leafs) and this fiscal succubus thinks I’d be entertained watching A-Rod mash dingers over getting into the post season? Unbelievably, this is pretty much what Boras is implying about Yankees fans:
Read it again carefully--that’s Boras’s implication; the fans would rather not win the World Series with A-Rod on the club than win it without being able to watch his client.
Of course, he also said back in 2001 about the Rod-less Seattle Mariners…
…and the Mariners jumped from 91 wins to 116 without A-Rod.
I really want him to take it on the chin. Right now, there’s an article on Newsday that discusses whether the duo should accept the Yankees coming offer of arbitration. It almost sounds like another Boras’ media plant. There is a certain logic in that (unless he had a pre-opt out deal for his client) because he has really made a mess of things for A-Rod. Boras has ticked off the Yankees and Red Sox and his pronouncements have made teams very wary about negotiating with him. An arbitration win of over $30 million would establish Boras’s market but it would make A-Rod a year older before his next long term contract with no guarantee Rodriguez could duplicate 2007.
Eventually everybody overreaches and gets burned. Boras believes in his own omniscience and savvy, it has served him well, but eventually ‘pride goeth before the fall.’ In my now famous (cough cough) “Battling Boras” column it was easy for a drooling knuckle-dragger like myself to point out the flaws in Boras’s reasoning so I can’t see how other clubs cannot see it as well. This ain’t 2000 and it’s not Alex Rodriguez circa 2000 where the sky was the limit. In 2007 A-Rod has a lot of baggage, a poor post season reputation, has been merely mortal in two of the last four seasons finishing 36th and 26th in OPS (in 2004 and 2006) and will be 33 come July.
I hope this is Scott Boras’s personal Waterloo
.
Best Regards
John
I’m amazed with the legs my “Battling Boras” piece has; the WSJ mention was nice of course, but I was floored by Will Leitch’s remark on Deadspin where he wrote: “In the other, more convincing corner, the now-famous Hardball Times article…”
It’s not even two weeks old. The world is a scary place where I write anything that can be described as famous.
Oh well, its good publicity at any rate. It’s tough to make a name in this line of work. Probably the worst overpopulation this planet suffers from is sportswriters. We’re like mosquitoes in May when you’re trying to fish; it doesn’t matter where you go, we’ll be there making folks so miserable that they’ll start slapping themselves for relief.
My MSN column has yet to be posted. I don’t worry as much about this sort of thing during the off-season since articles are much less time sensitive. When you write something from April-October there is a good chance that what you covered is old news by the time it goes live. My poor boss at MSN is severely overworked and I hate to bother him. He’s very good at what he does but he’s also his own staff. I wonder if the guy has a chance to sleep most days--considering he’s a fairly recent new father I wonder if he even knows what sleep is.
Hang in there Scott.
At any rate, my yet-to-be-posted column will be familiar to regular readers (the three flies who seem to like landing on my monitor who amscray whenever I bring out Mr. Swatter--cowards) of this blog; the shenanigans or the greatest manure spreader not made by John Deere … the purulent Mr. Boras. I’m appalled (like you care) that he seems fixated on packaging Alex Rodriguez as little more than a sideshow act. He’s not presenting him as a final piece of a championship puzzle (which is somewhat understandable I guess) but as a statistical freak-show. ‘Come see A-Rod slug 900 HR and get 4500 hits. He’s worth a half-billion to the Yankees but act now and you can get him for the bargain-basement price of $499,999,999.95.’
I remember a movie starring Paul Newman called ‘The Hunsucker Proxy’ that I lost a couple of hours of my life viewing. Bottom line, it doesn’t matter how good a thespian (not that there’s anything wrong with that ) Mr. Newman is, the movie sucked chunky bilge water. This is what Boras is selling: Pay big dollars and he’ll put up big numbers. It doesn’t matter that your team will Fujita-scale suck, folks will flock to Alex Rodriguez’s Home Run Derby® (a subsidiary of Scott Boras Inc.) .
As a fan, it really drives me up the wall (I waited for years to see if my mother would actually do this). The Jays haven’t even sniffed the post season since 1993 (and don’t get me started on the Maple Leafs) and this fiscal succubus thinks I’d be entertained watching A-Rod mash dingers over getting into the post season? Unbelievably, this is pretty much what Boras is implying about Yankees fans:
“Whenever you have an individual athlete in a team sport, many people--take those who are employed by the network--the regional sports networks are going to tell you that ratings are about winning. Interestingly enough, after the Yankees had won three World Series in four years in 2000, after achieving that and beating the Mets, their attendance went down by over 250,000 fans. What you're talking about is that a club that prior to Alex arriving drew its best in history, 3.4 million and last year, after four years of being there, the Yankees have now reached a record attendance where in Yankee history they've never reached 4 million and done it twice resulting in 4.2 million fans.
Prior to him arriving and the yes network being in existence for three years, and winning and being in the world series, and a level that the Yankees had not achieved since 2004, the ratings are dramatically higher than those days and they are-- went from 3.2 to 4.7. What this does for network value we've seen in the open market where the value of the franchise of the network franchise has gone from $1 billion upon his arrival to over $3 billion and no one is suggesting that that is solely the result of Alex Rodriguez playing for the New York Yankees, however, the residual increase and the fact that more than something than winning has gone on in New York. And the ratings have skyrocketed clearly suggests that there is a relationship between Alex’s multiple, well, potential multiple MVP's in New York and this historic performance compared to the Yankee players and the fan interest.”
Read it again carefully--that’s Boras’s implication; the fans would rather not win the World Series with A-Rod on the club than win it without being able to watch his client.
Of course, he also said back in 2001 about the Rod-less Seattle Mariners…
"The thing that bothers me the most, is that this guy (a reference to Mike Lupica’s remark that Rodriguez said he wanted to play for a winning club and the Mariners put a winning team on the field in 2000 reaching the ALCS) doesn't understand baseball. He doesn't understand why Seattle won last year. This year he's gonna find out why they won."
…and the Mariners jumped from 91 wins to 116 without A-Rod.
I really want him to take it on the chin. Right now, there’s an article on Newsday that discusses whether the duo should accept the Yankees coming offer of arbitration. It almost sounds like another Boras’ media plant. There is a certain logic in that (unless he had a pre-opt out deal for his client) because he has really made a mess of things for A-Rod. Boras has ticked off the Yankees and Red Sox and his pronouncements have made teams very wary about negotiating with him. An arbitration win of over $30 million would establish Boras’s market but it would make A-Rod a year older before his next long term contract with no guarantee Rodriguez could duplicate 2007.
Eventually everybody overreaches and gets burned. Boras believes in his own omniscience and savvy, it has served him well, but eventually ‘pride goeth before the fall.’ In my now famous (cough cough) “Battling Boras” column it was easy for a drooling knuckle-dragger like myself to point out the flaws in Boras’s reasoning so I can’t see how other clubs cannot see it as well. This ain’t 2000 and it’s not Alex Rodriguez circa 2000 where the sky was the limit. In 2007 A-Rod has a lot of baggage, a poor post season reputation, has been merely mortal in two of the last four seasons finishing 36th and 26th in OPS (in 2004 and 2006) and will be 33 come July.
I hope this is Scott Boras’s personal Waterloo
.
Best Regards
John
Full list of players and their 'triple-triple' seasons (beginning in 1919)
The following have enjoyed seasons of at least 100 runs/100 RBI/100 BB...
2007: D. Ortiz, A. Dunn
2006: D. Ortiz, J. Thome, Ryan Howard, J. Bay, T. Hafner
2005: D. Ortiz, B. Abreu A. Dunn
2004: B. Bonds, J. Edmonds, B. Abreu, A. Dunn, L. Berkman
2003: J. Thome, C. Delgado, T. Helton
2002: B. Bonds, J. Thome, J. Giambi, C. Delgado, S. Sosa, L. Berkman
2001: B. Bonds, J. Bagwell, J. Thome, J. Giambi, C. Delgado, T. Glaus, B. Abreu,
S. Sosa, L. Gonzalez
2000: F. Thomas, B. Bonds, G. Sheffield, J. Bagwell, J. Thome, A. Rodriguez, J. Giambi, C. Delgado, B. Giles, T. Glaus, T. Helton, R. Palmeiro, J. Edmonds
1999: G. Sheffield, J. Bagwell, J. Thome, M. McGwire, C. Jones, J. Giambi, A. Belle, B.Williams
1998: F. Thomas, B. Bonds, J. Bagwell, M. McGwire
1997: F. Thomas, B. Bonds, E. Martinez, J. Bagwell, J. Thome
1996: F. Thomas, B. Bonds, G. Sheffield, J. Bagwell, E. Martinez, J. Thome, M. McGwire
1995: F. Thomas, B. Bonds, E. Martinez
1994: F. Thomas
1993: F. Thomas, B. Bonds, J. Olerud
1992: F. Thomas, B. Bonds
1991: F. Thomas
1990: None
1989: None
1988: Will Clark
1987: Jack Clark, Dale Murphy, Dwight Evans
1986: None
1985: George Brett
1984: None
1983: Mike Schmidt
1982: None
1981: None
1980: None
1979: Mike Schmidt, Darrell Porter
1978: None
1977: Mike Schmidt
1976: Mike Schmidt, Joe Morgan
1975: None
1974: Mike Schmidt, Jimmy Wynn,
1973: Darrell Evans, Ken Singleton
1972: None
1971: None
1970: Carl Yastrzemski
1969: Willie McCovey, Harmon Killebrew, Frank Howard, Sal Bando
1968: None
1967: Harmon Killebrew
1966: None
1965: None
1964: None
1963: None
1962: Norm Siebern
1961: Mickey Mantle, Norm Cash, Rocky Colavito
1960: Eddie Mathews
1959: None
1958: None
1957: None
1956: Mickey Mantle
1955: Duke Snider
1954: Mickey Mantle, Eddie Mathews, Stan Musial
1953: Stan Musial, Ralph Kiner
1952: None
1951: Ted Williams, Ralph Kiner
1950: Ralph Kiner, Al Rosen
1949: Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Ralph Kiner, Vern Stephens
1948: Ted Williams, Ralph Kiner,
1947: Ted Williams
1946: Ted Williams
1945: None
1944: None
1943: None
1942: Ted Williams, Charlie Keller
1941: Ted Williams, Charlie Keller
1940: Jimmie Foxx
1939: Ted Williams, Dolph Camilli, George Selkirk
1938: Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, Hank Greenberg, Mel Ott, Harlond Clift, Dolph
Camilli, Charlie Gehringer
1937: Lou Gehrig, Hank Greenberg
1936: Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, Mel Ott, Dolph Camilli
1935: Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx
1934: Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx
1933: None
1932: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Mel Ott, Jimmie Foxx, Mickey Cochrane
1931: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig
1930: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Mel Ott, Hack Wilson,
1929: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Mel Ott, Jimmie Foxx
1928: Babe Ruth
1927: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig
1926: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig
1925: None
1924: Babe Ruth
1923: Babe Ruth
1922: None
1921: Babe Ruth
1920: Babe Ruth
1919: Babe Ruth
Best Regards
John
2007: D. Ortiz, A. Dunn
2006: D. Ortiz, J. Thome, Ryan Howard, J. Bay, T. Hafner
2005: D. Ortiz, B. Abreu A. Dunn
2004: B. Bonds, J. Edmonds, B. Abreu, A. Dunn, L. Berkman
2003: J. Thome, C. Delgado, T. Helton
2002: B. Bonds, J. Thome, J. Giambi, C. Delgado, S. Sosa, L. Berkman
2001: B. Bonds, J. Bagwell, J. Thome, J. Giambi, C. Delgado, T. Glaus, B. Abreu,
S. Sosa, L. Gonzalez
2000: F. Thomas, B. Bonds, G. Sheffield, J. Bagwell, J. Thome, A. Rodriguez, J. Giambi, C. Delgado, B. Giles, T. Glaus, T. Helton, R. Palmeiro, J. Edmonds
1999: G. Sheffield, J. Bagwell, J. Thome, M. McGwire, C. Jones, J. Giambi, A. Belle, B.Williams
1998: F. Thomas, B. Bonds, J. Bagwell, M. McGwire
1997: F. Thomas, B. Bonds, E. Martinez, J. Bagwell, J. Thome
1996: F. Thomas, B. Bonds, G. Sheffield, J. Bagwell, E. Martinez, J. Thome, M. McGwire
1995: F. Thomas, B. Bonds, E. Martinez
1994: F. Thomas
1993: F. Thomas, B. Bonds, J. Olerud
1992: F. Thomas, B. Bonds
1991: F. Thomas
1990: None
1989: None
1988: Will Clark
1987: Jack Clark, Dale Murphy, Dwight Evans
1986: None
1985: George Brett
1984: None
1983: Mike Schmidt
1982: None
1981: None
1980: None
1979: Mike Schmidt, Darrell Porter
1978: None
1977: Mike Schmidt
1976: Mike Schmidt, Joe Morgan
1975: None
1974: Mike Schmidt, Jimmy Wynn,
1973: Darrell Evans, Ken Singleton
1972: None
1971: None
1970: Carl Yastrzemski
1969: Willie McCovey, Harmon Killebrew, Frank Howard, Sal Bando
1968: None
1967: Harmon Killebrew
1966: None
1965: None
1964: None
1963: None
1962: Norm Siebern
1961: Mickey Mantle, Norm Cash, Rocky Colavito
1960: Eddie Mathews
1959: None
1958: None
1957: None
1956: Mickey Mantle
1955: Duke Snider
1954: Mickey Mantle, Eddie Mathews, Stan Musial
1953: Stan Musial, Ralph Kiner
1952: None
1951: Ted Williams, Ralph Kiner
1950: Ralph Kiner, Al Rosen
1949: Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Ralph Kiner, Vern Stephens
1948: Ted Williams, Ralph Kiner,
1947: Ted Williams
1946: Ted Williams
1945: None
1944: None
1943: None
1942: Ted Williams, Charlie Keller
1941: Ted Williams, Charlie Keller
1940: Jimmie Foxx
1939: Ted Williams, Dolph Camilli, George Selkirk
1938: Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, Hank Greenberg, Mel Ott, Harlond Clift, Dolph
Camilli, Charlie Gehringer
1937: Lou Gehrig, Hank Greenberg
1936: Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, Mel Ott, Dolph Camilli
1935: Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx
1934: Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx
1933: None
1932: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Mel Ott, Jimmie Foxx, Mickey Cochrane
1931: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig
1930: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Mel Ott, Hack Wilson,
1929: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Mel Ott, Jimmie Foxx
1928: Babe Ruth
1927: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig
1926: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig
1925: None
1924: Babe Ruth
1923: Babe Ruth
1922: None
1921: Babe Ruth
1920: Babe Ruth
1919: Babe Ruth
Best Regards
John
The ‘Triple-Triple’ Between the Wars Through 1945
Not surprisingly, Babe Ruth was the man to inaugurate the 100/100/100 club in 1919, he would also be the only one do accomplish the feat until Lou Gehrig joined him in the year he notched his sixth of what would be ultimately a record 12 seasons of 100+ runs, RBI and walks. Gehrig would finish one behind the Bambino in that category yet the “Iron Horse” would have two streaks, one of five and one of six straight ‘triple-triple’ years. Among future generations, only Barry Bonds would reach double digits in such seasons.
Of note, many of the game’s greats never enjoyed years where they reached triple figures in those categories: Hank Aaron, Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Willie Mays, Joe DiMaggio, Rogers Hornsby, Honus Wagner, and Frank Robinson among them. Even some current greats like Ken Griffey Jr. Albert Pujols, Manny Ramirez, and Vladmir Guerrero are still looking for their debut in the ‘triple-triple’ club.
One thing that stood out among these is that Dolph Camilli pulled it off three times and missed a fourth by eight runs in a fairly short career (10 seasons of 100 or more games). I felt confident there would be some dead ball era players who pulled it off; Cobb came closest in 1915 with a 144 runs/99 RBI/118 BB season. Another mild surprise was the appearance of old Brownie Harlond Clift (career OPS+ of 116) in 1938. He almost did it twice; falling just two walks shy of the ‘triple-triple’ the year before.
Here are the players with multiple 100/100/100 seasons from 1919-1945 …
Babe Ruth (12 times, seven in a row 1926-1932)
Lou Gehrig (11 times, four year streak: 1929-32; five in a row: 1934-38)
Jimmy Foxx (7 times, three straight from 1934-36)
Mel Ott (five times)
Ted Williams (three times, eight overall)
Dolph Camilli (three times)
Hank Greenberg (twice)
Charlie Keller (twice)
…and the breakdown by year:
1945: None
1944: None
1943: None
1942: Ted Williams, Charlie Keller
1941: Ted Williams, Charlie Keller
1940: Jimmie Foxx
1939: Ted Williams, Dolph Camilli, George Selkirk
1938: Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, Hank Greenberg, Mel Ott, Harlond Clift, Dolph Camilli, Charlie Gehringer
1937: Lou Gehrig, Hank Greenberg
1936: Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, Mel Ott, Dolph Camilli
1935: Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx
1934: Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx
1933: None
1932: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Mel Ott, Jimmie Foxx, Mickey Cochrane
1931: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig
1930: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Mel Ott, Hack Wilson,
1929: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Mel Ott, Jimmie Foxx
1928: Babe Ruth
1927: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig
1926: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig
1925: None
1924: Babe Ruth
1923: Babe Ruth
1922: None
1921: Babe Ruth
1920: Babe Ruth
1919: Babe Ruth
... George Selkirk, Harlond Clift, Charlie Gehringer, Mickey Cochrane and Hack Wilson once each.
Best Regards
John
Of note, many of the game’s greats never enjoyed years where they reached triple figures in those categories: Hank Aaron, Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Willie Mays, Joe DiMaggio, Rogers Hornsby, Honus Wagner, and Frank Robinson among them. Even some current greats like Ken Griffey Jr. Albert Pujols, Manny Ramirez, and Vladmir Guerrero are still looking for their debut in the ‘triple-triple’ club.
One thing that stood out among these is that Dolph Camilli pulled it off three times and missed a fourth by eight runs in a fairly short career (10 seasons of 100 or more games). I felt confident there would be some dead ball era players who pulled it off; Cobb came closest in 1915 with a 144 runs/99 RBI/118 BB season. Another mild surprise was the appearance of old Brownie Harlond Clift (career OPS+ of 116) in 1938. He almost did it twice; falling just two walks shy of the ‘triple-triple’ the year before.
Here are the players with multiple 100/100/100 seasons from 1919-1945 …
Babe Ruth (12 times, seven in a row 1926-1932)
Lou Gehrig (11 times, four year streak: 1929-32; five in a row: 1934-38)
Jimmy Foxx (7 times, three straight from 1934-36)
Mel Ott (five times)
Ted Williams (three times, eight overall)
Dolph Camilli (three times)
Hank Greenberg (twice)
Charlie Keller (twice)
…and the breakdown by year:
1945: None
1944: None
1943: None
1942: Ted Williams, Charlie Keller
1941: Ted Williams, Charlie Keller
1940: Jimmie Foxx
1939: Ted Williams, Dolph Camilli, George Selkirk
1938: Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, Hank Greenberg, Mel Ott, Harlond Clift, Dolph Camilli, Charlie Gehringer
1937: Lou Gehrig, Hank Greenberg
1936: Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, Mel Ott, Dolph Camilli
1935: Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx
1934: Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx
1933: None
1932: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Mel Ott, Jimmie Foxx, Mickey Cochrane
1931: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig
1930: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Mel Ott, Hack Wilson,
1929: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Mel Ott, Jimmie Foxx
1928: Babe Ruth
1927: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig
1926: Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig
1925: None
1924: Babe Ruth
1923: Babe Ruth
1922: None
1921: Babe Ruth
1920: Babe Ruth
1919: Babe Ruth
... George Selkirk, Harlond Clift, Charlie Gehringer, Mickey Cochrane and Hack Wilson once each.
Best Regards
John
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
