Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Sunday, March 11, 2007

Chet Lemon

Eligible in 1996.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 11, 2007 at 04:52 PM | 18 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 11, 2007 at 04:56 PM (#2310251)
Not a great player, but better than many remember thinking he was.
   2. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 11, 2007 at 05:26 PM (#2310264)
I remember every time the Royals played the Tigers, Denny Matthews would say Chet was a great base runner, but a poor base stealer. Can anyone recall if that was true?

Chet is a cool name that I wish would come back in vogue.
   3. Tim D Posted: March 11, 2007 at 07:08 PM (#2310320)
Chet had good speed but no idea what to do with it aside from running down line drives in Tiger Stadium's cavernous CF. He was terrible at stealing and was always doing that kooky head first slide into first on groundballs. That said, getting him was one of Jim Campbell's many great trades. Lemon was an athletic, instinctive CF with power and decent plate discipline. The Tigers were not going to pay Steve Kemp big money; they traded him for Lemon even up, giving away a good hitter, indifferent OF and a guy who had old player skills. Kemp was good that first year in Chicago but that was it. The Tigers had CF covered through '87. Lemon was slowing down by then and the Tigers moved him to RF to make room for Gary Pettis. That did not work out as well. Chet did not have a RFs bat and Pettis was Pettis. Lemon led the AL in HBP 4 times. He was always leaning out over the plate trying to pull. A lot of line drives pulled foul down the LF line. An instrumental player on several good teams. Mike Cameron with 20 extra points in BA minus the steals. The Tigers would be very pleased if Curtis Granderson turned out as well.
   4. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: March 11, 2007 at 07:55 PM (#2310333)
Chet is a cool name that I wish would come back in vogue.

I don't see too many kids named Chester in the future. :-)
   5. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: March 11, 2007 at 08:48 PM (#2310353)
Did the Tigers in the 80's corner the market on underappreciated good players? Lemon is another in a series of guys back on that team who could really play but outside of Detroit and the Lemon family who knew?

Is Lemon the last guy with 500 or more putouts as an outfielder?
   6. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: March 11, 2007 at 08:48 PM (#2310355)
Mike Cameron with 20 extra points in BA minus the steals.

My thinking exactly---the Cameron of the 1970s and 1980s. Which I suppose might be the Paul Blair of the 1960s and 1970s???
   7. sunnyday2 Posted: March 12, 2007 at 11:47 AM (#2310626)
Vastly underappreciated...not only better than Kemp but better than Kirk Gibson too. But somehow the other guys were always the matinee idols.
   8. asinwreck Posted: March 12, 2007 at 12:30 PM (#2310631)
The best player by far of the last Bill Veeck-owned team. That Kemp-Lemon trade angered me 25 years ago. I was happy Lemon got a ring in 1984 but wish he could have been on the 83 Sox, who could have used him in CF (although one of the problems in the ALCS was Dybzinski's Lemonesque baserunning).
   9. Buddha Posted: March 12, 2007 at 05:01 PM (#2310766)
One of my all-time favorites. I always remember he had a little tiny mitt.

I remember my dad being pissed they traded Steve Kemp, but it worked out for the best.
   10. DCW3 Posted: March 12, 2007 at 07:00 PM (#2310844)
Is Lemon the last guy with 500 or more putouts as an outfielder?

Dwayne Murphy had 507 in 1980. I believe he's the last one.
   11. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: March 12, 2007 at 07:47 PM (#2310886)
DC:

Thanks.
   12. Daryn Posted: March 12, 2007 at 08:22 PM (#2310918)
Why is it that OFs are getting fewer putouts nowadays? I would have thought that the love of the long ball would lead to more OF putouts.
   13. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: March 12, 2007 at 08:25 PM (#2310920)
Why is it that OFs are getting fewer putouts nowadays? I would have thought that the love of the long ball would lead to more OF putouts.


More Ks, I would guess.
   14. DavidFoss Posted: March 12, 2007 at 08:26 PM (#2310921)
Why is it that OFs are getting fewer putouts nowadays?

Is it just an increase in the K rate? That's part of it anyways.
   15. Dr. Vaux Posted: March 12, 2007 at 08:37 PM (#2310927)
More Ks, more fly balls get over the wall or off the wall, and outfielders are selected more for their power than for their speed, so they just don't get to as many balls.
   16. yest Posted: March 12, 2007 at 08:37 PM (#2310928)
shorter fences
   17. Paul Wendt Posted: March 12, 2007 at 11:35 PM (#2311006)
Look at the distribution of other fielding plays conditional on putting the ball in play; that is, with nonstrikeouts as denominator.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
danielj
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.2165 seconds
49 querie(s) executed